(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Policy Forum Report : Training Educators to Work with Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired"

POLICY FORUM REPORT: 

TRAINING EDUCATORS TO WORK WITH STUDENTS WHO ARE 
BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED 







^JOSVIO^ 



Convened on September 18-20, 1996 

at the 

Grand Hyatt Hotel 

Final Report 

Year 4 Deliverable #9-4-1 

Under Contract No. HS92015001 

January 21, 1997 

Prepared for: 

Office of Special Education Programs 

U. S. Department of Education 

Prepared by: 

Project FORUM 

Eileen M. Ahearn, Ph.D., Director 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education 

1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320 

Alexandria, VA 22314 



L111.A 
6 

P64 
1<H7 



Project FORUM at the National Association of State Directors 
of Special Education (NASDSE) is a contract funded by the Office of 
Special Education Programs of the U. S. Department of Education. 
The project carries out a variety of activities that provide information 
needed for program improvement, and promote the utilization of 
research data and other information for improving outcomes for 
students with disabilities. The project also provides technical 
assistance and information on emerging issues, and convenes small 
work groups to gather expert input, obtain feedback, and develop 
conceptual frameworks related to critical topics in special education. 



This report was supported in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Education (Contract 
No. HS92015001). However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the 
position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the 
Department should be inferred. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Project FORUM extends its sincere appreciation to the policy forum participants who 
reviewed and commented on an earlier draft of this document. Their efforts have served to enrich 
the document's quality and accuracy. Our acknowledgment of these individuals does not necessarily 
indicate their endorsement of the final product. 



IV 

II 
n 

ii 
11 

w 

■ 
■ 
i 

i 

i 

p 
p 
i 

i 
» 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ABSTRACT • m 

Purpose and Organization of the Policy Forum 1 

Background and Purpose 1 

Preparation for the Policy Forum 2 

Process of the Meeting 3 

Summary of Discussion - Preservice Training 5 

Summary of Discussion - Inservice Training 7 

Summary of Discussion - Other Topics 9 

Preliminary Action Plans 10 

Local Level - Preservice 10 

State Level - Preservice 11 

IHE Level - Preservice 12 

Federal & National Level - Preservice 13 

Local Level - Inservice 14 

State Level - Inservice 15 

IHE Level - Inservice 16 

Federal Level - Inservice 16 

References 17 

APPENDIX A 18 

APPENDIX B 22 

APPENDIX C • 72 

APPENDIX D 94 



n 
n 
■ 
i 
■ 
■ 
■ 
ii 
■ 
i 
■ 
■ 
■ 
i 
■ 
ii 
i 
i 



ABSTRACT 

This document reports on the purpose, design, implementation and outcomes of a policy 
forum entitled Training Educators to Work with Students Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired held 
at The Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C. on September 18-29, 1996. Participants included 
representatives of universities, public schools, schools for the blind, organizations that work with 
this population, state departments of education, Regional Resource Centers, parent organizations, 
and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Discussion 
at the policy forum focused on issues related to preservice and inservice training for staff who work 
with students who are blind or visually impaired, especially ways in which training programs could 
be supported and strengthened. Preliminary action plans to address needs in these areas were 
developed. 



II 

1 
i 
1 
i 
i 
■ 
■ 
1 
1 
I 
1 
■ 
I 
1 
p 
1 
I 



TRAINING EDUCATORS TO WORK WITH STUDENTS WHO ARE 
BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED: A POLICY FORUM 



Purpose and Organization of the Policy Forum 

Background and Purpose 

In the spring of the 1996, while preliminary discussions were taking place at the federal level 
about the regionalization of the preservice training for educators of the blind and visually impaired, 
the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) was made aware 
of increasing concerns in the university community about personnel preparation in this disability 
area. Three of these concerns include the scarcity of teachers and instructors for students with visual 
impairments regardless of primary disability (Bowen & Klass, 1993; Wiener & Joffee, 1993), the 
reduction in number of tenure-track faculty in this disability area over the past decade (Pierce, Smith, 
& Clarke, 1992; Silberman, Corn, & Sowell., 1996), and the closure of teacher-training programs 
in the area of visual impairments (Silberman et al., 1996). 

There are conflicting sets of data on the incidence of visual impairments. According to the 
17th Annual Report to Congress (ARC), an estimated .04 percent (four hundredths of one percent) 
of the student population, age 6-21, are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 
Part B, and Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with a disability 
classification of visual impairment (1993-94 school year). However, Silberman et al. (1996) point 
out that students with visual impairments are often not identified in official counts because of wide 
variations in data systems and state regulations that require that students be listed by their primary 
disability (frequently mental retardation). According to the American Printing House (APH) for the 
Blind (1994), federal counts include less than half of the students with visual impairments who are 
counted in the Federal Quota Registration maintained by that organization. But the APH count 
includes only students who are legally blind, which still excludes some students with lesser visual 
impairments who are in need of special educational services. Benson & Marano (1994) set the 
prevalence rate of visual impairments as high as one percent of the student population. 

Since decisions regarding personnel supply and demand are often based on child count data, 
inaccurate numbers further complicate the issues surrounding the training of educators to work with 
students who are blind and visually impaired. In response to the gravity of these issues and the need 
for input from the field regarding regionalized training, OSEP called upon Project FORUM at the 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) to hold a policy forum on 
this topic. The purpose of holding this forum was to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders 
to discuss the critical issues related to training educators to work with students who are blind or 
visually impaired. The goals of the policy forum were: 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum Page I 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 21, 1997 



«* To specify the essential components and structural elements of a good preservice program 
for educators 

'»*■ To identify effective methods for inservice training of educators 

«► To identify successful strategies for addressing personnel shortages in the field 

■* To develop an action plan which builds on this policy forum 

Preparation for the Policy Forum 

Selection of Participants 

Project FORUM and OSEP staff worked closely with university faculty representatives to 
select participants who would represent different perspectives on the issue of training educators to 
work with students who are blind or visually impaired. Participants were selected who had 
experience with both preservice and inservice training of teachers and orientation and mobility 
(O&M) specialists. Invited participants included state directors of special education, other state 
education agency staff concerned with low incidence populations, university faculty, a university 
dean, representatives from national organizations and consumer groups, officials from schools for 
the blind, a parent representative, a service provider, a Regional Resource Center representative, 
a staff member from the Networking System for Training Education Personnel (NSTEP) Project at 
NASDSE, and OSEP staff. The list of participants can be found in Appendix A. 

Background Materials 

All participants received the following materials (contained in Appendix B of this report) 
prior to the policy forum: 

Bowen, M.L. & Klass, P. H. (1993). Low-incidence special education teacher preparation: A supply 
and capacity pilot study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(3), 248-257. 

Corn, A.L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K.M., Ryan, F., & Siller, M. A. (1995). The National Agenda for 
the Education of Children and Youths with Visual Impairments, Including Those with 
Multiple Impairments. New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind. 

National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (May 1996). Higher Education 
Programs for Personnel Preparation in Visual Impairments/Blindness in the United States. 
Reston, VA: Author. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum Page 2 

Project FORUM at NASDSE Jamiar >' 2l < '" 7 



Silberman, R.K., Com, A.L., & Sowell, V.M. (1996). Teacher educators and the future of personnel 
preparation programs for serving students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual 
Impairment and Blindness, March-April 1 996, 1 1 5- 1 24. 

Logistical Details 

The policy forum was held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on Wednesday 
evening, September 18th, Thursday, September 19th, and Friday morning, September 20th. 

Process of the Meeting 

The opening session of the policy forum was held on Wednesday evening. Following dinner, 
Lou Danielson, Director of OSEP's Division of Innovation and Development, and Eileen Ahearn, 
Director of Project FORUM, welcomed the participants. Project FORUM staff also reviewed the 
meeting goals and agenda, provided information about logistical and reimbursement procedures, 
and introduced the meeting facilitator, Doin Hicks. The remainder of the evening was dedicated to 
participants' self introductions and a sharing of perspectives on this topic. 

Thursday morning began with an overview of the state of preservice training in this disability 
area, presented by Anne Com, Kay Ferrell and George Zimmerman. Overheads and handouts used 
for this presentation can be found in Appendix C. Following the presentation, the total group reacted 
to their data and discussed other issues related to preservice training. After a break, there were two 
small-group discussions on preservice training-one group focusing on state and local roles, and the 
other group focusing on the roles of institutions of higher education (IHE) and the federal 
government. Each small group reported back to the larger group before the meeting was adjourned 
for a lunch break. 

The afternoon session was launched by three short presentations on inservice training. Pat 
Gonzalez provided the group with review of current thinking in the staff development arena, Mike 
Valentine discussed the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) and how West 
Virginia has addressed CSPD requirements, and Mike Bina provided a state school for the blind 
perspective. Handouts from these presentations can be found in Appendix C. Following the 
presentations, the participants opted to continue discussing inservice training in a larger group, rather 
than break into smaller groups as indicated on the agenda. 

On Friday morning, the final session of the policy forum, participants were presented with 
a Worksheet for Action Plan. The discussion built upon that worksheet and covered issues that 
participants felt needed clarification from the previous day. Tom Hehir, Director of the OSEP, was 
in attendance for a portion of this final session, and participated in the discussion. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum Page 3 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 21 . 1997 



■ 

The agenda included in the meeting packet can be found in Appendix D; however, please 
note that the process of the meeting described above varied somewhat from the agenda that was 1 1 

distributed at the outset of the policy forum. 

■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 
I 
■ 
■ 
P 
I 
I 
I 
I 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired A Policy Forum ,ftZ, 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 2L '" 7 



1 

1 

I 



Summary of Discussion - Preservice Training 

♦ The IDEA child count for students with visual disabilities is a significant undercount of the 

actual incidence of visual impairment (VI). Discrepancies appear to be the result of counting 
students in only one disability area. Often students with VI have other disabilities (e.g., 
mental retardation) and, therefore, will be counted in another disability area. Data from other 
sources indicate that the discrepancy between the real count and the official child count may 
be increasing. Because of the fact that child count data are the basis for making critical 
personnel decisions, there is an urgent need to get consensus on how student data should be 
collected. There was discussion about a national registry on VI similar to the one Gallaudet 
has on hearing impaired students. Concern was expressed about how the reduction in data 
collection activities, that seems likely to be included in a reauthorized IDEA, would impact 
the VI child count. 



The number of preservice training programs is inadequate, and consequently the number 
of trained teachers for the VI and O&M specialists is insufficient. There are currently only 
26 programs in 19 states that meet the American Association for Education and 
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) standard of one full time equivalent 
(FTE) faculty member per program. Some reports include university programs that do not 
meet this minimum standard. A total of 14 programs have been closed since 1980, and five 
other programs are now in jeopardy. In that time period, only one new program has opened 
and remained open. Cost and changing university priorities were among the factors cited for 
the reduction in training programs. 

The lack of national standards for certification compromises the quality of preservice 
training in the area of VI. The Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and 
Visually Impaired (AER) - Division 17 has issued standards, but these have not been adopted 
by the states. One suggestion was that the National Association of State Directors of Teacher 
Education and Certification (NASDTEC) be contacted regarding this matter. There was 
discussion as to whether OSEP should fund programs that do not meet national certification 
standards. 

A number of faculty-related concerns were also discussed in regard to program quality, 
such as the increasing number of courses being taught by adjunct staff rather than university 
faculty. When tenure-track faculty leave, too often they are not replaced, partly because it 
is difficult to find doctoral level applicants for these positions. Quality may be compromised 
because existing faculty are required to spend time recruiting students for VI training 
programs, and are being given more responsibilities outside the VI programs. With more 
responsibilities and fewer faculty, less research is being done in the field of VI. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum ~ " Page 5 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 21, 1997 



There is a lack of good clinical supervision and mentoring in some places, although the 
National Commission for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) requires mentoring 
the first year after graduation. Supervision is particularly a challenge when training 
programs are far from practicum sites, which is often the case. A related issue is that not all 
teacher training programs provide certification in O&M, and some dual certification 
programs are separately housed, hindering needed coordination. 

University training programs face a variety of financial challenges due to budget 
constraints. Tuition payments do not cover the actual cost of instruction, and, with the trend 
towards offering in-state tuition to students who live in states without training programs, 
covering costs is becoming more difficult for universities. Schools of education are being 
forced to consider offering a few larger programs, rather than many smaller ones. This is 
when state and regional planning is essential. Only 16 of the 26 university training programs 
receive funding from the U.S. Office of Education's Office of Special Education Programs 
(OSEP). Participants stressed the need for federal support of faculty (programs) and students 
(stipends). 

Changes are necessary in the nature ofpreservice training due to the number of non- 
traditional students entering training programs, and the paucity of educators in rural and 
urban districts. For example, for an increasing number of students, Vl-program entry 
represents a career change, and/or students may be working full or part time. There is a great 
need for teachers of the VI and O&M specialists in urban and rural areas; however, there are 
no university training programs within easy access for potential students who live in these 
areas. Some solutions discussed include distance education, summer-only programs, and 
tuition support for students willing to make a future commitment to work in a high-need 
district. 

Measuring the effectiveness of preservice training programs is a critical activity and 
frequently overlooked. There is also little research and published information on effective 
preservice training methods for educators in the field of VI (e.g., distance learning). 

Federally-funded regional training programs or "centers of excellence" may be a viable 
solution to many of the problems with preservice training for VI. Regional centers would 
bring together faculty who now work in isolation. However, creating such centers leaves 
some problems unsolved and creates others. The entire process of funding regional centers 
would require national and regional collaboration/cooperation of an unprecedented nature. 
Perhaps the federally-funded Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) could assist with this 
process. Even defining a region could be a controversial matter. (RRC regions could be 
used.) There are questions about whether universities would have the confidence to build 
up training programs and hire high quality faculty with "soft money." Also, would 
individual faculty be rewarded for their involvement in these centers? (i.e., Would time- 
consuming region-wide supervision substitute for published research?) There are also the 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum "^ 

Project FORUM at NASDSE anuary , 



questions of how tuition would be set, and whether centers would specialize (e.g., 
technology, literacy). 

♦ Parent/family demand for more and better qualified educators for students with VI has been 
minimal for a variety of reasons, and levels of advocacy differ greatly across the country. 
One possible explanation for the minimal demand is the low incidence of this disability, and 
parents of students with VI are isolated from each other. Also, many parents are not aware 
of the services to which their children are entitled (e.g., O&M) or, in the case of a student 
with multiple disabilities, the visual impairment may be the least of the parents' concerns. 
Perhaps parent input on the nature and adequacy of VI services should be sought in a 
structured manner (e.g., federally-funded study). Increased parent advocacy is needed to 
stimulate change. 

♦ Reciprocity across states in the area of teacher and O&M specialist certification must be a 
goal. The current lack of reciprocity creates many challenges for training programs and 
graduating students. It was suggested that teacher and O&M specialist shortages are much 
increased because of certification barriers. A common core curriculum in the area of VI 
would streamline the process of training and hiring qualified service providers, and could 
facilitate interstate reciprocity in certification. Limiting federal support to training programs 
that meet national standards and promote reciprocity was discussed. The success of the 
American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) in implementing national standards was 
cited and there was interest in conferring with that association. 

Summary of Discussion - Inservice Training 

♦ Accurate child count data is necessary for making decisions related to inservice training. 
Without accurate data, the need for inservice training in this area may not be given the 
priority it deserves. As mentioned previously, the IDEA child count for students with visual 
disabilities is considered to be a significant undercount of the actual incidence of VI. This 
is probably due to the fact that students with VI are typically counted only once, usually in 
their major disability area, which typically is not VI. One participant suggested that the 
Instructional Materials Centers, located in almost every state, keep track of every student 
with VI goals on his/her Individual Education Plan (IEP). This could be a valuable source 
of child count data. 

♦ Inservice training in the area of VI is currently inadequate both in regard to completing 
the fundamental preparation that cannot be entirely met in the preservice training programs, 
and providing the necessary ongoing support and expansion of knowledge and skills for staff 
working in the field. The reasons for this inadequacy are many, but include low incidence 
of the disability (i.e., few staff need training in VI), and lack of resources for inservice 
training. The question of whether the federal government should provide more financial 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum Page 7 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 21, 1997 



support for inservice training was discussed, particularly in light of the fact that the federal 
government invests substantial funds in preservice training. 

The provision of inservice training is changing, with more emphasis on using needs 
assessment information, and less emphasis on providing "one-shot sessions." Refresher 
courses are popular in some states, as is the "trainer of trainers" model that is effective when 
practitioners are spread out over a whole state rather than in a few schools. 
Mentoring/coaching is being used in some districts, although not necessarily in the area of 
VI. Local staff with particular expertise are also being used as low cost trainers. One 
important consideration in the provision of training is that many practitioners cannot easily 
leave home to travel to inservice opportunities. This is a problem because teachers of the VI 
and O&M specialists are typically isolated from each other due to the low incidence of the 
disability. Often service providers who work with the VI in neighboring counties have not 
even met each other. 

Professional meetings, conferences, and exhibits provide valuable inservice training 
opportunities for teachers of the VI and O&M specialists. However, these events are 
attended by far too few practitioners. The expectation in many districts is that practitioners 
should cover the cost of these events, if they are granted time off from their schools at all. 
Perhaps this expectation should change and inservice monies should be made available for 
this type of inservice training. 

A national inservice training model may be one way to improve the dissemination of 
research findings and insure a more consistent quality of educators. Translating research into 
practice is of critical importance, but is currently ineffective and often takes 20 years. Higher 
education and the federal government should play a role in facilitating this process. 
However, a national model may not be responsive to the diverse inservice training needs 
across the country. For example, in some schools and districts, very basic information about 
visual impairments is needed. 

SEAs can no longer provide inservice training at the level they could in the past because 
of limited funds and downsizing of departments. Other resources must be tapped in the 
future, such as schools for the blind, higher education, parent groups, and advocacy 
organizations. However, SEAs should continue to provide leadership in this area because 
administrators at the local level may be in need of inservice as much as the practitioners. 
SEA staff can play a valuable role by providing lists of available resources in the area of VI, 
forwarding announcements about conferences, supporting parent participation in inservice 
activities, and coordinating regional inservice training with higher education. 

Measuring the effectiveness of inservice training is an important, but widely neglected 
activity. There is also little research or published information on effective inservice methods 
for educators in the field of VI. It is literally impossible at this time to answer the question, 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum ^Ll 

Project FORUM at NASDSE Jamary 2L '" ? 



"How effective is the new technology of distance learning for educators of students with 
VI?" 

The role and participation of the schools for the blind could be expanded. Staff at schools 
for the blind are excellent resources for the state and local education agencies in regard to 
inservice training. For example, in Missouri, the School for the Blind has sponsored 
"Weekend with the Experts" and covered such topics as transition and socialization. On the 
other hand, staff development needs at schools for the blind should be considered when 
planning state-wide training in the area of VI. 



Summary of Discussion - Other Topics 

Although the discussion at this policy forum focused mainly on preservice and inservice 
training issues, the following related issues emerged over the course of the policy forum. 



Research in the area of VI (not just related to training) is critical and should involve schools 
for the blind, as well as other practitioners in the field. Federal support for such research is 
necessary. 

Recruitment and retention of teachers from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds 
for students with VI is important. 

Interchange with other low incidence disability advocates and teacher trainers was mentioned 
as a way to increase the knowledge base on a variety of issues (e.g., child count, preservice 
and inservice training, recruitment and retention). 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum P Q S e 9 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 21, 1997 



Preliminary Action Plans 



Local Level - Preservice 



Action Needed 


Steps to be Taken 


1 . Improve the quality of programs for the 
VI. 


la. 
lb. 
lc. 


Use national standards to set up and run 

programs (AER-Division 17 Standards). 

Get national standards into the hands of 

"grass roots' constituents. 

Solicit input from parents and community 

members. 


2. Support preservice training in the area of 
VI. 


2a. 


Provide release time and other incentives 
to get both teachers of the VI and O&M 
specialists trained. 


3 . Coordinate with providers of preservice 
training. 


3a. 


Establish closer working relationships 
with schools for the blind, professional 
organizations, and other LEAs. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 10 
January 21. 1997 



State Level - Preservice 



Action Needed 



1 . Conduct accurate assessment of services 
needed by students with VI in the state. 



2. Facilitate reciprocity among states in 
regard to certification and endorsements 
in the area of VI. 



3. Foster a regional approach to problem 
solving for VI services. 



4. Improve the quality of VI programs. 



5. Reduce shortages of teachers of the VI 
and O&M specialists. 



Steps to be Taken 



la. Revise method used for child count to 
accurately identify all students who need 
VI services, regardless of primary 
disability. 



2a. Establish interstate agreements for 

certification and endorsement of teachers 
of the VI and O&M specialists. 

2b. Take a stronger stand on national 
standards for VI programs. 



3 a. Meet with in-state IHEs to emphasize the 

necessity of supporting regional training 

programs and collaborating on training 

efforts (e.g., grant writing). 
3b. Work with IHEs to establish a "common 

core" undergraduate curriculum that is 

accepted across states. 
3c. Facilitate the development of state 

legislation and regulatory measures that 

support a regional approach. 
3d. Involve historically Black colleges and 

universities in regional efforts. 



4a. Adopt national certification standards 

(AER-Division 17 Standards). 
4b. Recognize the necessity of O&M skills 

and certification as part of VI training. 
4c. Evaluate the effectiveness of training 

programs, particularly those using new 

technologies. 
4d. Facilitate the availability of practicum 

experiences as part of preservice training. 
4e. Solicit input from parents and community 

groups. 



5a. Contribute to the cost of out-of-state 
tuition when no in-state training is 
available. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 1 1 
January 21, 1997 



IHE Level - Preservice 



Action Needed 



1 . Improve the quality of VI programs. 



Explore the concept of regional training 
centers for VI. 



Connect students to professional 
associations. 



Steps to be Taken 



1 a. Create dual certification programs, 
lb. Adopt national standards (AER - 

Division 17). 

Evaluate training models. 

Participate in discussions on Goal 3 of 

the National Agenda. 

Provide practical experience for students 

in training. 

Collaborate with schools for the blind. 



lc. 

Id 

le 



If. 



2a. 



2b. 



Build relationships with other IHEs and 

work collaboratively on regional 

approaches. 

Respond to federal requests for 

information on viable regional training 

models. 



3a. Introduce students to national and state 
professional organizations and encourage 
them to join/participate. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 12 
January 21. 1997 



Federal & National Level - Preservice 



Action Needed 



1 . Provide direction on accurate 

identification of VI preservice training 
needs. 



Conduct careful planning at the federal 
level in regard to regional training 
programs. 



3. Reconsider the federal policy for funding 
VI preservice training programs. 



Steps to be Taken 



la. 



lb 



Obtain consensus on which set of data 
will be used to estimate number of 
students who need VI services. 
Establish a national registry on the 
incidence of VI. 

lc. Provide guidance to states on the accurate 
collection of data on current preservice 
training capacity relative to data-based 
needs assessment. 

Id. Review proposed changes in data 
collection requirements as part of the 
reauthorized IDEA for impact on 
accurate VI data. 

le. Target VI during federal compliance 
monitoring to assess the extent to which 
service needs of the VI are being met 
with current staff. 



2a. Confer with key stakeholders regarding 
regional centers and insure that states are 
involved. 

2b. Issue planning grants to stimulate 
regional planning. 

Support RRC efforts to work with states 
on the issue of regional centers. 
Conduct peer review on all matters 
related to funding regional centers. 



2c 



2d 



3a. Work with current training programs to 
review funding policy. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FOR UM at NASDSE 



Page 13 
January 21, 1997 



4. Support high quality VI programs. 


4a. Provide federal resources for translating 

research into practice. ] 
4b. Support research in the area of VI. 
4c. Support doctoral-level training in order to 

sustain preservice programs. 
4d. Encourage the adoption of national 

standards for certification. 
4e. Disseminate key sections of the National 

Agenda through national 

groups/associations. 


5. Decrease isolation of VI preservice 
training programs. 


5a. Establish and maintain on-going 
exchange of information among 
preservice training programs. 



Local Level - Inservice 



Action Needed 


Steps to be Taken 


1 . Obtain accurate data on students with VI 
to determine inservice needs. 


la. Submit data to state vision consultants on 
the number of students with VI, 
regardless of major disability. 


2. Translate research into classroom 
practice. 


2a. Grant release time and financial support 
for teachers of the VI and O&M 
specialists to attend professional 
association events and national 
conferences. 

2b. Provide opportunities for educators of 
the VI to access up-to-date information 
and communicate with their colleagues 
via the internet. 


3. Educate LEA special education directors 
about the needs of students with VI. 


3a. Disseminate information about the needs 
of students with VI to LEA special 
education directors. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 14 
January 21, 1997 



■ 

■ 
■ 
I 
I 
I 
■ 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
P 
P 



Guard against "burn-out" and feelings of 
isolation on the part of educators who 
work with the VI. 



4a. Provide opportunities for educators of 
the VI to communicate with colleagues 
via the internet and at conferences. 

4b. Offer mentoring opportunities in the area 
of VI to teachers at all levels. 



State Level - Inservice 



Action Needed 


Steps to be Taken 


1 . Obtain accurate data on students with VI. 


1 a. Revise child count methods to accurately 
reflect all students who need VI services, 
regardless of major disability. 


2. Coordinate inservice information for 
LEAs. 


2a. Designate a contact person at the SEA 
for VI inservice training issues. 

2b. Disseminate information about available 
course offerings, resources, and 
alternative strategies for inservice in the 
area of VI. 


3. Educate SEA staff about needs in the 
area of VI. 


3a. Include staff knowledgeable about VI 
issues on broad educational policy 
committees (special or general education) 
in order to keep VI issues in the 
forefront. 

3b. Attend national meetings and forums on 
VI issues. 


4. Assure high quality inservice in the area 
ofVI. 


4a. Conduct statewide needs assessment. 
4b. Facilitate a regional/multi-county 

approach to inservice. 
4c. Help districts evaluate models of 

inservice and disseminate information 

about effectiveness. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/ Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 15 
January 21, 1997 



IHE Level - Inservice 



Action Needed 



1 . Support high quality inservice in the area 
ofVI. 



Steps to be Taken 



1 a. Assist with the evaluation of inservice 
training programs at the local level. 

lb. Coordinate preservice and inservice 
training efforts. 



II 

■ 



Federal Level - Inservice 



Action Needed 



1 . Support high quality inservice in the area 
of VI. 



Steps to be Taken 



la. Provide grants for developing and 
evaluating models of inservice. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 16 
January 21, 1997 



I 
* 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 



References 

American Printing House for the Blind. (1994). Distribution of Federal Quota Based on January 
3, 1994 Registration of Eligible Students. Louisville, KY: Department of Educational and 
Advisory Services, American Printing House for the Blind. 

Benson, V. & Marano, M.A. (1994). Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 
1992. Vital Health Statistics, 1 0(189). 

Bowen, M.L. & Klass, P. H. (1993). Low-incidence special education teacher preparation: A supply 
and capacity pilot study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(3), 248-257. 

Corn, A.L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K.M., Ryan, F., & Siller, M. A. (1995). The National Agenda for 
the Education of Children and Youths with Visual Impairments, Including Those with Multiple 
Impairments. New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind. 

Pierce, T.B, Smith, D.D., Clarke, J. (1992). Special education leadership: Supply and demand 
revisited. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 175-182. 

Silberman, R.K., Corn, A.L., & Sowell, V.M. (1996). Teacher educators and the future of personnel 
preparation programs for serving students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual 
Impairment and Blindness, March-April 1996, 1 15-124. 

Weiner, W. & Joffe, E. (1993). The orientation and mobility personnel shortage and university 
training programs. RE: view, 25, 67-75. 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum Page 1 7 

Project FORUM at NASDSE January 2Ii l997 



■ 

P 

■ 



i 

■ 

■ 
p 

p 



APPENDIX A 
Participant List 



Training Educators to Work with Students Who are Blind or Visually Impaired: 

A Policy Forum 

Washington, DC - September 18-20, 1996 

Participant List 



Mike Bina 

Superintendent 

Indiana School for the Blind 

7725 North College Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

voice: (317) 253-1481 

fax:(317)251-6511 

[also, President - Council of Schools for the 

Blind] 



Kay A. Ferrell 

Professor 

Division of Special Education 

College of Education 

University of Northern Colorado 

Greeley, CO 80639 

voice: (970) 351-1653 

fax:(970)351-1061 

e-mail: kferrell@bentley.univnorthco.edu 



Mack Bowen 

Professor of Education 

Illinois State University 

Special Education Program 

SED5910 

Normal, IL 61761 

voice (309/ 438-7532 

fax: (309) 438-8699 or (309) 438-3813 

Michael Collins 
Director 

Hilton/Perkins Program 
Perkins School for the Blind 
175 North Beacon Street 
Watertown, MA 02172 
voice: (617) 972-7221 
fax:(617)923-8076 

Anne Corn 

Professor of Special Education 

Box 328 

Peabody at Vanderbilt University 

Nashville, TN 37203 

voice: (615)322-2249 

fax:(615)343-1570 

e-mail : cornal@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 



Doin Hicks, Consultant/ Meeting Facilitator 

5907 Alexander Lane 

Box 178 

Deale, MD 20751 

voice: (410) 867-2941 

fax:(202)651-5708 

Yvonne Howze, Superintendent 

Missouri School for the Blind 

3815 Magnolia Avenue 

St. Louis, MO 63110 

voice: (314) 776-4320 

fax:(314)776-1875 

e-mail: yvonne.howze@together.org 

Susan LaVenture 

Executive Director 

National Association of Parents of the 

Visually Impaired 

P.O. Box 317 

Watertown, MA 02272 

voice: (800) 562-6265 

fax:(617)972-7444 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 19 
January 21, 1997 



Donna McNear 

Teacher/O&M Specialist 

Rum River Special Education Co-op 

315 7th Lane, N.E. 

Cambridge, MN 55008 

voice: (612)689-3600 

fax: (612)689-3601 

e-mail: 0911rrse@informns.kl2.mn.us 

Kathy Megivern, Executive Director 
Association for the Education and 
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually 

Impaired 
Suite 320 

206 North Washington Street 
Alexandria, V A 223124 
voice (703) 548-1884 
fax: (703)683-2926 
e-mail: aernet@laser.net 

Kenneth Metz, Dean 
School of Education 
University of Pittsburgh 
5T01 Forbes Quadrangle 
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 
voice: (412) 648-1773 
fax:(412)648-1825 
e-mail: kenmetz+@pitt.edu 

Christy Riffle 

Technical Assistance Specialist 

Mid-South Regional Resource Center 

University of Kentucky 

126 Mineral Industries Building 

Lexington, KY 40506-0051 

Voice: (606) 257-4921 

Fax: (606) 257-4353 

E-Mail: rifflec@ihdi.ihdi.uky.edu 



Kathleen Robins, Program Director 
Multi-University Consortium Teacher 
Training Program, Department of Special 

Education 
University of Utah 221 MBH 
Salt Lake City, UT 841 12 
voice: (801) 581-6082 
fax: (801) 581-5223 
e-mail: krobins@gse.utah.edu 

Susan Spungin 

Vice President, National Programs & 

Initiatives 
The American Foundation for the Blind 
1 1 Perm Plaza, Suite 300 
New York, NY 10001 
voice: (212)502-7631/7632 
fax: (212)502-7773 
e-mail: spungin@afb.org 

Ian Stewart 

Consultant, Visual Disabilities 

Iowa Department of Education Bureau of 

Special Education 
1BSSS, 1002 G Avenue 
Vinton, IA 52349 
voice: (319) 472-5221 
fax:(319)472-4371 
e-mail: d.stock@www.mebbs.com 

Michael A. Valentine, State Director 
Office of Special Education & Coordinator, 

Low Incidence 
West Virginia Department of Education 
1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. 
Bldg 6, Room B-304 Capitol Complex 
Charleston, WV 25305 
voice: (304) 558-2696 
fax: (304) 558-3741 
e-mail: mvalenti@access.kl2.WV.US 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FORUM at NASDSE 



Page 20 
January 21. 1997 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 



Penny Zago 

Consultant in Training, Curriculum and 

Approvals 
Michigan Department of Education 
P.O. Box 30008 
Lansing, MI 48909-7508 
voice: (517) 373-6325 
fax: (517) 373-7504 
e-mail : pzago@special . mde . state . MI . US 

George Zimmerman 

Associate Professor 

University of Pittsburgh 

Department of Instructions and Learning 

4H32 Forbes Quadrangle 

Pittsburgh, PA 15260 

voice: (412)624-7247 

fax:(412)648-7081 

e-mail: gjz+@pitt.edu 



NASDSE 

Eileen Ahearn, Director of Project FORUM 
Joy Markowitz, Project FORUM 
Gaylen Pugh, Consultant to Project FORUM 
Judy Schrag, Consultant to Project FORUM 
Pat Gonzalez, NSTEP 



OSEP 

Lou Danielson 
Vera Hart 
Tom Hehir 
Jane Case Williams 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 
Project FOR UM at NASDSE 



Page 21 
January 21. 1997 



APPENDIX B 
Policy Forum Background Materials 



11 

■ 

■ 

■ 

p 
■ 
I 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 



Teacher Education and Special Education 

1993, Volume 16, No. 3, 248-10 



Low-Incidence Special Education 
Teacher Preparation: A Supply and 
Capacity Pilot Study 

Mack L. Bowen & Patricia H. Klass 



ABSTRACT: This study was designed to obtain information on special education teacher preparation 
practices, including program capacity and projections of future program graduates, from institutions of 
higher education. A pilot survey instrument, "Personnel Preparation Program Supply and Capacity Survey, " 
was developed and sent to a target population of low-incidence area special education teacher preparation 
programs. Low-incidence program areas were chosen as a smaller subset of the larger field of special 
education training programs due to the paucity of teacher supply data in these areas. Survey questions were 
clustered under six topics closely related to the supply of new teaching personnel. The topics included were (a) 
institutional program information, including present and projected number of graduates, (b) certification 
practices, (c) student recruitment and retention, (d) program capacity 1 , (e) graduate follow-up, and (f) 
supply/demand projections. Findings are presented and discussed with implications for national practice. 



What is the capacity of the nation's colleges 
and universities to prepare special edu- 
cation teachers and related services personnel? 
Few concrete, nationally reported data are 
available concerning the capacity of institu- 
tions of higher education to train teachers who 
are certified in the various disability areas. 
Related concerns of teacher shortage, attrition, 
and supply tend to obfuscate the measurement 
of capacity. Additionally, state and national 
needs for enhanced knowledge of training 
program characteristics, certification practices, 
student recruitment and retention, and gradu- 
ate follow-up have been expressed. 

Background 

The personnel concept most closely re- 
lated to capacity is the new supply of 
personnel being prepared to enter the job 
market. A major although inadequate measure 



of teacher supply is the number of degrees 
conferred during a given period of time. 
The national repository for this information 
is the Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System (IPEDS), formerly known as the 
Higher Education General Information Survey 
(HEGIS), maintained by the National Center 
for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 
Education. In a 10-year review of HEGIS 
data on special education degree awards 
(1975-76 to 1984-85), Bowen (1987) found a 
consistent drop of 500 to 1,000 special 
education teachers being graduated per year 
from 1976 to 1985. Thus the total number of 
degrees awarded in special education appears 
to be dropping rapidly. The deteriorating 
situation in training capacity has been further 
described by Boe (1990), who reported that 
the number of bachelor's and master's special 
education graduates declined from 23,000 in 
1983-84 to 16,000 in 1987-88, a 30.43% loss. 



248 



Supply and Capacity Pilot Study 

Bowen & KJass 



Concern for the reported shortage of 
qualified personnel in special education and 
related services has been reflected in both 
the 1986 Amendments of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 99-457) and 
the 1990 Amendments of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 101-476). Both 
require that in making grants to prepare 
personnel in special education, the U. S. 
Department of Education must base the 
determination of training awards on informa- 
tion related to the present and projected 
need for personnel to be trained based on 
identified state, regional, or national short- 
ages and the capacity of institutions and 
agencies to train qualified personnel. Al- 
though the merits of having data available on 
the present and projected need for special 
education personnel and the capacity of 
institutions to produce these personnel are 
obvious, significant gaps occur in both state 
and national knowledge about these issues. 
There are well documented discussions con- 
cerning the lack of specific, accurate, national 
data on the numbers of special education 
teachers available, the number of teachers in 
preparation, and other factors affecting teacher 
availability (Bowen, Butler, Jones, Bresco, & 
Huang, 1991; Geiger, 1989; Haggstrom, Darling- 
Hammond, & Grissmer, 1988; Lauritzen, 1990; 
McLaughlin, Smith-Davis, & Burke, 1986; 
Smull & Bunsen, 1989). 

To obtain a more accurate indication of 
training program characteristics and capacity, 
areas of training, and number of teachers 
who will be prepared in the near future, 
programmatic information and data from 
individual institutional training programs and 
state education agencies are needed. There- 
fore, the purposes of this study were (a) to 
develop a pilot survey instrument and (b) to 
survey a population of special education 
teacher preparation programs on certain 
topics closely related to the supply of new 
teaching personnel. The topics chosen for 
this investigation were (a) institutional pro- 
gram information, including present and 
projected number of graduates; (b) certifica- 
tion practices; (c) recruitment and retention; 
(d) program capacity; (e) graduate follow up; 
and (f) supply/demand projections. These 
topics were investigated in the present study 
and are reported here. 



Method 
Subjects 

The target group of institutions identified 
to receive the survey comprised special 
education personnel preparation programs 
that offer teacher preparation/certification in 
low-incidence disability areas. The National 
Directory of Special Education Personnel 
Preparation Programs (Blackhurst et al., 1987) 
was used to identify institutions preparing 
special education teachers. For the purpose of 
this study, low-incidence program areas were 
operationally defined to include hearing im- 
pairments, multiple disabilities, orthopedic 
impairments, other health impairments, visual 
impairments, and deaf-blindness. In school 
year 1990-1991, these disability areas individ- 
ually include no more than 2.2% of school-age 
children and youth with disabilities and 
together comprise 6.5% of all students with 
disabilities (U. S. Department of Education, 
Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress, 1992). 
In addition, the areas of early childhood 
special education, bilingual special education, 
and moderate and severe mental handicaps 
were added to the program areas to be 
surveyed. These areas were viewed as repre- 
senting new and developing areas of training 
or as areas that have a substantial identity at the 
training program level and still meet the 
general definition for low-incidence programs. 
Each teacher preparation program identified 
in the National Directory (Blackhurst, et al., 
1987) as offering a degree program in the 
above disability categories was sent a pilot 
survey and asked to participate in the study. 

Surveys were sent to personnel prepara- 
tion programs in 49 states. Alaska was not 
represented because no low incidence pro- 
grams there were identified in the National 
Directory (Blackhurst, et al., 1987). The fre- 
quency of training programs receiving surveys 
per state ranged from 1 to 38. Of the 431 
surveys sent to training program coordinators, 
46 were reported as out of scope (i.e., 
programs that had been terminated or were 
nonexistent). The corrected number of surveys 
sent was 385. As shown in Table 1, 233 surveys 
were returned for an overall return rate of 
60.5%. In contrast to the original program 
listings in the National Directory (Blackhurst, 



249 



TESE, Volume 16, No. 3 

Summer 1993 



TABLE 1. Summary' of Program Areas Surveyed and Rate of Return 





Corrected Number 


Number of Surveys 


Percentage of 


Area 


Sent 


Returned 


Return 


Hearing Impaired 


66 


58 


87.9 


Deaf-Blind 


4 


4 


100.0 


Early Childhood Special Education 


74 


26 


35.1 


Visually Impaired 


36 


29 


80.6 


Mukihandicapped 


10 


10 


100.0 


Orthopedic & Other Health Impaired 


26 


9 


34.6 


Bilingual Special Education 


7 


7 


100.0 


Moderate Mental Handicaps 


31 


14 


45.2 


Severe/Profound Handicaps 


83 


28 


33.7 


Generic 1 


48 


48 


100.0 


Tocal 


385 


233 


60.5 



3 Although programs were originally designated as categorical according to the national listing, 48 respondents described 
their program area as being generic in training focus. 



et_ al., 1987), 48 programs identified them- 
selves under a different category, which we 
labeled "generic." Respondents indicated that 
their state certification standards allowed 
program graduates to teach children and youth 
with a wide range of disabilities, including 
those identified as low-incidence handicapped. 
Programs in these generic areas produce 
graduates who are certified to teach children 
with mild to severe impairments. The generic 
program area may also be referred to as 
cross-categorical, meaning that more than one 
discrete category are included in the label. 
These 48 generic programs were retained in 
the study and constitute a separate program 
training area. 

After training programs were identified by 
type of low-incidence area and by state, a 
frequency by region of the country was 
tabulated. Four regions commonly used by the 
Bureau of the Census were identified: the 
northeast, south, midwest, and west. Of the 385 
surveys, 52 (13.5%) were from the northeast, 
130 (33.8%) from the south, 129 (33.5%) from 
the midwest, and 74 (19.2%) from the west. It 
should be noted that this survey did not seek 
to sample training programs by state or region 
of the country. 

Instrument 

The authors constructed a prototype sur- 
vey for use in obtaining a wide range of 
information from special education teacher 
preparation programs. This prototype was 
developed as pan of a pilot study designed to 
precede a larger survey of all special education 
teacher preparation programs, including both 



low-incidence and high-incidence areas, to be 
conducted in 1993-94. Six topical areas, as 
previously identified, were contained in the 
survey with characteristic questions under 
each area. Training program coordinators 
were asked to respond to the questions and 
provide appropriate program data. This instru- 
ment, the "Personnel Preparation Program 
Supply and Capacity Survey," was developed 
during the fall of 1990 and the early spring of 
1991. The survey was sent to low-incidence 
program coordinators in February and March 
of 1991. 

Procedure 

Of the 431 programs, 402 were identified 
as low-incidence areas based on program 
descriptions listed in the National Directory 
(Blackhurst, et. al., 1987). Because of a limited 
listing of programs in the areas of deaf/blind, 
bilingual special education, visually impaired, 
hearing impaired, and mukihandicapped, 29 
additional programs were identified in these 
areas from teacher preparation programs 
listed with the American Foundation for the 
Blind and American Annals of the Deaf. The 
pilot survey was mailed to the program 
coordinator of each of these low-incidence 
programs. 

The first mailing of the survey was sent in 
February, 1991. A follow-up letter and survey 
were sent to nonresponding programs in 
March, 1991. A third contact, a telephone 
interview, was initiated between June and 
August, 1991. In the telephone follow-up, a 
short form of the questionnaire was used; 
some items in the mailed survey were 



250 



Supply and Capacity Pilot Study 

Bowen & KJass 



eliminaced due to the length of the survey. 
Thus, item response rates are based on either 
the combined mail and telephone surveys 
(n = 233) or on mailed responses (n = 167) 
alone. 

Responses to survey items were coded and 
analyzed using the Statistical Package for the 
Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 4.0) data analy- 
sis program. Data are reported as a composite 
of all program area responses and, in some 
instances, separately for each of the nine 
low-incidence areas plus the generic area. 

Results 

The results from an analysis of 233 surveys 
received from program coordinators of low- 
incidence disability training programs are 
provided here. Findings derived from the six 
sets of survey questions identified earlier, i.e., 
program information, certification processes, 
recruitment and retention, program capacity, 
graduate follow-up, and supply/demand are 
presented. 

Program Information 

A wide range of program-related informa- 
tion was acquired from survey respondents. 
Findings from this section of the survey 
revealed that most (78%) low-incidence spe- 
cial education teacher preparation programs 
were conducted in public, state-supported 
institutions. The median number of students 
being prepared was 35.5 (interquartile range 
= 57) per program in the typical low- 
incidence undergraduate and graduate pro- 
grams. Approximately 29% of all full-time 
special education faculty were represented in 
the nine low-incidence areas, and approxi- 
mately 26% of all student special education 
majors were enrolled in low-incidence pro- 
grams. 

More low-incidence programs offered 
master's degrees (n = 185) than bachelor's 
degrees {n = 152), although more students 
were reported to be enrolled at the bachelor's 
level (1699 vs. 1408). Approximately one-third 
of the respondents (n = 73) prepared 
doctoral personnel. When the numbers of 
graduates reported for 1990 and projected for 
1993 were compared across four degree 
levels, there appeared to be a projected 



increase of graduates at each degree level 
except at the graduate certificate level. These 
data are presented in Tables 2 and 3- 

It should be noted that when dependent 
r-tests were performed on data provided by 
those programs that reported both years (1990 
and 1993), the projected increase was statisti- 
cally significant when all four degree levels 
were combined by area. When numbers of 
graduates at all levels in 1990 were compared 
with the numbers projected for 1993, signifi- 
cant increases were reported in the areas of 
hearing impaired, early childhood, visually 
impaired, multihandicapped, bilingual special 
education, moderate mentally impaired, se- 
vere/profound impairments, and generic spe- 
cial education. The results of these statistical 
tests are reported in table 4. 

Certification Information 

Questions were asked of the respondents 
concerning state certification processes and 
how these processes were viewed as affecting 
their training programs. Fifty-eight (25%) of 
the respondents stated that their low-incidence 
programs reflected a mixture of categorical 
and noncategorical certification. They also 
indicated that the master's degree was not 
required for initial certification in most low- 
incidence areas. Survey participants were 
asked questions as to whether (a) implemen- 
tation of more stringent certification require- 
ments or teacher certification tests would 
reduce enrollments, (b) state certification 
standards or requirements were more strin- 
gent than those in effect 5 years ago, and (c) 
anticipated state certification requirements 
projected for 5 years into the future would 
affect program enrollment. No clear consensus 
emerged from the combined responses. Per- 
haps due to the wide differences in state 
certification processes and individual training 
program composition, no definite effects of 
specific certification processes on lcfw-inci- 
dence programs were observed in this study. 

Recruitment/Retention 
Information 

In response to questions about student 
enrollment patterns, recruitment, and reten- 
tion in low-incidence program areas, respon- 
dents indicated that enrollment in their 



251 



TESE, Volume 16, 


No. 3 


















Summer 1993 












-■ 








TABLE 2. Number of Low-Incidence Graduates by 


Area, 


1990 










Bachelor's 


Graduate Certificate 
n of 


Master's 


Doctorate 






n of 




n of 




n of 








re- 


n of 


re- 


n of 


re- 


n of 


re- 


n of 


Total 


Program 


sponses 


graduates 


sponses 


graduates 


sponses 


graduates 


sponses 


graduates 


Graduates 


Hearing Impaired 




















(n = 58) 


39 


386 


18 


67 


45 


257 


13 


4 


714 


Early Childhood 




















Handicapped 




















(n = 26) 


16 


202 


14 


92 


19 


144 


10 


5 


443 


Visually Impaired 




















(n = 29) 


20 


59 


17 


49 


25 


121 


17 


7 


236 


Multihandicapped 




















(n = 10) 


7 


33 


5 


10 


10 


36 


2 





79 


Orthopedic & Other 




















Health Impaired 




















(n = 9) 


6 


140 


4 


15 


7 


13 


5 


4 


172 


Moderate Mental 




















Handicaps (n=14) 


12 


93 


6 


26 


8 


35 


2 





154 


Severe/Profound 




















Handicaps (n = 28) 


15 


70 


19 


184 


27 


308 


10 


7 


569 


Bilingual Special 




















Education (n = 7) 


1 





1 


14 


6 


44 


2 


4 


62 


Deaf/Blind (n = 4) 








1 


12 


3 


5 


1 





17 


Generic (n = 48) 


36 


716 


20 


248 


35 


445 


11 


21 


1.430 


Total Graduates 




1.699 




717 




1,408 




52 


3,876 


(n = 233) 





















program areas was steady (33-9%) or increas- 
ing (48.9%) and that more program trainees 
were female (M = 88.1%) than male (M = 
13.1%). The largest ethnic group of students 
reported was Caucasian (M = 87.8%), with 
substantially smaller groups representing 
blacks (M = 8.7%) and Hispanics (M = 7.1%). 
Minority student enrollment was reported to 
be substantially unchanged during the past 5 
years, although 41.3% of the mail respondents 
reported recruitment of minority students, and 
37.1% reported recruitment for specific train- 
ing areas. 

Program coordinators expressed concern 
about the need to recruit students, and 27.9% 
indicated moderate to much success in their 
recruitment activities. Incentives were offered 
in the recruitment of students by 35.2% of the 
programs, whereas 30.0% indicated that no 
unique incentives were used. 

On a question concerning retention of 
students in training programs, 45.5% of the 
responding program coordinators indicated 
that retention of students was not viewed as a 
problem. Specific retention procedures had 
been initiated in 16.7% of the programs. 

Respondents were asked a question con- 



cerning the types and availability of student 
financial aid. For respondents who described 
the types of aid 37.8% of the students were 
reported to receive federal grant support 
(n = 113), 26.1% received state grant support 
{n = 88), and 17.1% received local (within 
institution) support (n = 91). 

Program Capacity 

National concern has been expressed 
concerning the capacity of institutions to 
prepare an adequate supply of new or 
additional personnel. Survey participants were 
asked a number of questions concerning 
program support, long-range planning, enroll- 
ments, and employment of graduates. Respon- 
dents provided the following picture of the 
capacity of training programs to supply needed 
personnel. 

The conditions most frequently identified 
as causing reduction or decrease of trainees 
were increased costs associated with diminish- 
ing financial aid (39.5%), cutbacks in funding 
(34.1%), and reduction of faculty (26.9%). 
Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated 
that changes in population, tax base, state 



252 



Supply and Capacity Pilot Study 

Bowen & KJass 



TABLE 3. Number of Low-Incidence Graduates bv Area, 1993 



Bachelor's 



Graduate Certificate 



Master's 



Doctorate 



Program 



n of n of n of n of 

re - nof re " n °f re- nof re- n of Total 

sponses graduates sponses graduates sponses graduates sponses graduates Graduates 



Hearing Impaired 

(n = 58) 37 516 11 

Early Childhood 
Handicapped 

(n = 26) 11 162 9 

Visually Impaired 

(n = 29) 16 70 15 

Multihandicapped 

(n=10) 5 45 4 

Orthopedic & Other 
Health Impaired 

(n = 9) 6 155 4 

Moderate Mental 

Handicaps (n= 14) 8 82 4 

Severe/Profound 

Handicaps (n = 28) 14 87 14 

Bilingual Special 

Education (n = 7) l 6 1 

Deaf/Blind (n = 4) 

Generic (n = 48) 29 748 15 



53 

57 
83 
16 

47 
25 

174 

19 



216 



43 

18 

24 
9 



23 

7 

3 

29 



391 

221 
188 

58 

47 

58 

305 

102 

15 

484 



Total Graduates 
(n = 233) 



1,871 



12 

10 
13 
3 

5 
2 



14 

8 
12 
3 

7 



16 

7 



29 



974 

448 
353 
122 

256 
165 

582 

134 
15 

1,477 



690 



1,869 



96 



4,526 



mandates, or certification processes had not 
changed the number of students being trained. 
It was unclear as to whether these trends had 



specifically changed the number of employ- 
ment requests for program graduates. 

Sixty-seven percent indicated that program 



TABLE 4. Comparison of Actual 1990 Graduates to Projected 1993 Gradutes by 
Program Area 



Area 



1990 
M 
(sd) 



1993 

M 

(sd) 



Mean 
Difference 



Hearing Impairments 
Deaf-Blindness 
Early Childhood 
Visual Impairments 
Multiple Disabilities 

Orthopedic & Other 

Health Impairments 
Bilingual Special 

Education 
Moderate Mental 

Handicaps 
Severe & Profound 

Impairments 
Generic 

'p < .05. 



12.30 

(12.86) 

3.50 

(2.12) 

16.00 

(11.13) 

8.12 

(8.40) 
8.11 

(590) 

19.11 
(22.80) 

10.33 
(10.09) 

12.10 
(12.21) 

16.06 
(12.36) 

32.08 
(34.57) 



17.09 

(12.43) 

5.00 

(2.83) 

22.79 

(13.13) 
13.58 
(9.74) 
13.56 
(8.05) 
28.44 

(22.56) 
17.33 

(10.95) 
16.50 

(14.54) 
21.97 

(15.92) 
37.87 

(37.03) 



4.79 
1.50 
6.79 
5.46 
5.45 
9.33 
7.00 
4.40 
5.91 
5.79 



df 
% 



1 

18 

25 

8 

8 

5 

9 

33 

38 



-4.50* 

-300 

-4.21- 

-5.15- 

-5.29* 

-2.26 

-7.52* 

-322* 

- 2.87* 

-3.35* 



.000 
.205 
001 
.000 
.000 
.054 
.001 
.011 
.007 
.002 



253 



TESE, Volume 16, No. 3 

Summer 1993 



faculty and resources would allow more 
students to be enrolled and trained, while 
16.2% of those surveyed indicated that their 
program resources were strained or that the 
enrollment of majors was decreasing. 

Graduate Follow-up 

Survey respondents were asked to discuss 
follow-up activities and employment patterns 
of their graduates. Approximately 37% of them 
indicated that they tracked or followed up the 
employment of their program graduates. Most 
program graduates were reported to locate in 
the state where they were trained or in the 
general region. Only 7.3% of the respondents 
indicated that their graduates did not locate in 
any particular geographic area. 

Supply/Demand 

Respondents were asked general ques- 
tions about the capacity of their programs to 
respond to state and local needs for personnel. 
Sixty-seven percent indicated that training 
programs were not producing sufficient num- 
bers of graduates to meet the current need in 
their states. Further, 49.4% of the respondents 
indicated that the combined IHEs in their state 
could not supply the personnel needs in their 
low-incidence areas. Thirty-three percent sur- 
veyed indicated that they received information 
from their institution's placement bureau 
concerning teaching vacancies in their area, 
while 34.3% indicated that this information 
was not provided. 

When asked if school district hiring of 
temporary or uncertified personnel dimin- 
ished the hiring of their program graduates, 
approximately 46.8% of respondents indicated 
that these hiring practices did not adversely 
affect the hiring of their graduates, while 
24.5% indicated there was a negative affect. 

Discussion 

Special education teacher preparation pro- 
grams were surveyed on a wide range of topics 
related to the supply of new teaching person- 
nel. Content areas such as program character- 
istics, present and projected number of 
graduates, institutional capacity, certification 
practices, and recruitment and retention prac- 
tices were surveyed using a sample of 



low-incidence special education teacher prep- 
aration programs. Several of the findings are 
particularly worthy of note and are discussed 
here. 

Findings from the survey revealed that 
78% of the low-incidence teacher preparation 
programs are located at public, state- 
supported institutions, where 29% of the 
full-time faculty and 26% of all the special 
education majors were identified in the 
low-incidence areas. There were slightly 
more students being trained at the bachelor's 
level and, over a 3-year period, there 
appeared to be a projected increase in the 
number of graduates at the bachelor's, 
master's, and doctoral degree levels, and a 
decrease projected at the graduate certificate 
level. When numbers of graduates reported 
in 1990 were compared with numbers 
projected for 1993, significant increases were 
reported in the areas of hearing impaired, 
multihandicapped, bilingual special educa- 
tion, moderate mental handicaps, bilingual 
special education, severe/profound impair- 
ments, and generic special education. Projec- 
tions of graduates over this 3-year period 
were difficult to make, and program coordi- 
nators expressed uncertainty in making pro- 
jections, even for small enrollment programs. 
It is possible that the responding faculty may- 
have been constrained in making projections 
of student enrollment when other factors 
beyond program control may limit capacity 
and the production of new personnel. 

On the topic of certification issues, 25% 
of the respondents stated that their low- 
incidence programs reflected a mixture of 
categorical and noncategorical certification 
processes. This finding reflects other national 
studies that have examined the current 
system for certification and training of special 
education teachers. Chapey, Pyszkowski, and 
Trimarco (1985), in a survey of state special 
education certification policies, found that 25 
states were moving toward a generalist 
concept by certifying teachers noncategori- 
cally or generically. Similar findings regard- 
ing increased movement by states toward the 
offering of generic teaching certificates have 
been reported (Morsink, Thomas, & Smith- 
Davis, 1987; Cobb, Elliott, Powers, & Voltz, 
1989). No clear consensus among respon- 
dents was found concerning the projection of 



254 



Supply and Capacity Pilot Study 

Bowen & KJass 



state certification requirements, certification 
standards, or teacher certification tests. This 
lack of definite effects of specific certification 
processes on low-incidence programs may be 
due to the wide differences in state certifica- 
tion processes and individual training pro- 
gram composition. 

Recent concern has been directed toward 
the recruitment and retention of students in 
teacher education. Nearly half (48.9%) of the 
respondents indicated that enrollment in their 
program area was increasing, and 27.9% 
indicated moderate to much success in their 
recruitment activities. Most students were 
Caucasian (M = 87.8%) and female (M = 
88.1%). Although some success in recruiting 
students had been achieved by the respon- 
dents in this study, minimal change in the 
demographic configuration of trainees had 
occurred over the last 5 years. Representations 
of 5% for disabled students, 7% to 9% for 
black or Hispanic students, and 13% for male 
students in current training programs are 
inadequate. Similar findings have been re- 
ported by Geiger (1992) and Root and 
Kennedy (1990). Perhaps more creative pro- 
gram options, such as mentoring and other 
incentives, should be promoted (Benner & 
Cagle, 1987; Clemson, 1987; Healy & Welchert, 
1990; Miller, Thomson, & Rousch, 1989). 
Programs that have reported success in recruit- 
ing minority students, males, or persons with 
disabilities need to be studied. The need for 
student financial support as a recruitment or 
retention incentive should be monitored 
Cones, 1991; Spero, 1987). Concerning recruit- 
ment incentives, between 17.1% and 37.8% of 
student trainees on average were reported to 
receive some form of financial support. Should 
these forms of student assistance diminish, the 
number of trainees may be expected to 
decrease significandy. 

Economic conditions have had some 
effect on the capacity of the training pro- 
grams, but to date they have not caused 
disruption and curtailment of programs. 
These data were inconsistent, however. Over 
three-fourths of the programs reported that 
they had been adversely affected by eco- 
nomic circumstances. Conversely, nearly half 
of the programs indicated that they still have 
resources to enroll more students. One-third 



of die programs reported that they are 
operating at full capacity but are increasing in 
enrollment. 

The programmatic and economic func- 
tions associated with program capacity goals 
should be examined by each training pro- 
gram. In times of changing national and local 
educational needs, a close look at the training 
capacity goals at the program level is in 
order. Approximately one-third of the respon- 
dents indicated that they were conducting 
long-range planning, yet they expressed diffi- 
culty in projecting the number of graduates 
expected in the near future. The capacity 
projection is not easy to establish, particularly 
when unknown conditions such as the 
economy, state and national reforms, and 
philosophical perspectives can intervene and 
alter program goals. Nevertheless, focused 
attention and planning that is related to 
department ■ or program training capacity 
should become a vital pan of program 
administration. 

Approximately one-half of the respondents 
indicated that only when the graduates of all 
training programs in their state were com- 
bined could an adequate supply of personnel 
needs in their specific low-incidence area be 
obtained. Forty-nine percent of the respon- 
dents reported that the combined training 
programs in their state failed to meet the 
personnel needs of local education agencies. 
Under these conditions, where the demand is 
demonstrable, the supply short, and capacity to 
train is open and available, more trainees in 
the preservice pipeline are needed. If the lack 
of students in training is a critical point in the 
supply/demand cycle, direct, remedial actions 
(e.g., increased recruitment, specific incen- 
tives, and increased visibility of high job 
placement of graduates) would greatly im- 
prove supply over time (Fox, 1984; Jones, 
1991; Spero, 1987) 

Conclusions 

The findings of this study have been 
presented and discussed under six related 
content areas: (a) institutional program infor- 
mation, (b) certification practices, (c) student 
recruitment and retention, (d) program capac- 
ity, (e) graduate follow-up, and (f) supply/ 



255 



TESE, Volume 16, No. 3 

Summer 1993 



demand projections. In summary, it is recom- 
mended that major attention should be 
focused on institutional and state certification 
relationships, program training capacity and 
the projection of graduates, and student 
recruitment. This information should be useful 
to a wide range of educators and policy 
makers in understanding the many complexi- 
ties involved in determining supply and 
demand at the preservice level. 



References 



Benner, S. M., & Cagle, L C. (1987). The mentoring 
team approach: A new concept in undergradu- 
ate teacher education. Teacher Education and 
Special Education, 10, 26-30. 
Blackhurst, A. E, Dory, L, Geiger, W. L, Lauritzen, P., 
Lloyd, S. R., & Smith, P. D. (1987). National 
directory of special education personnel prepa- 
ration programs. Reston, VA Teacher Educa- 
tion Division of the Council for Exceptional 
Children; Washington DC: National Information 
Center for Children and Youth with Handicaps. 
Boe, E. (1990). Neiu comparative data on special 
education supply I demand. Philadelphia, PA 
University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of 
Education (published on SpecialNet). 
Bowen, M. (1987). A review of national and state 
population data related to students receiving 
special education services. Unpublished manu- 
script. 
Bowen, M., Buder, K_, Jones, P., Bresco, M., & 
Huang, A (1991). Personnel preparation.' In 
L M. Bullock & R. L Simpson (Eds.), Critical 
issues in special education: Implications for 
personnel preparation (pp. 71-82). Denton, 
IX University of North Texas. 
Chapey, G., Pyszkowski, I., & Trimarco, T. (1985). 
National trends for certification and training of 
special education teachers. Teacher Education 
and Special Education, 8, 203-208. 
Clemson, R. L (1987). Mentorship in teaching. 

Action in Teacher Education, 9(3), 85-90. 
Cobb, H., Elliott, R., Powers, A, & Vbltz, D. (1989). 
Generic versus categorical special education 
teacher preparation. Teacher Education and 
Special Education, 12, 19-26. 
Fox, J. N. (1984). Restructuring the teacher work 
force to attract the best and the brightest. 
Journal of Education Finance, 10, 214, 237 
Geiger, W. (1989, February). The decline in special 
education degrees conferred. Washington, DC: 



NASDSE/CEC, National Clearinghouse for Pro- 
fessions in Special Education. 
Geiger, W. (1992). Data on graduates of post- 
baccalaureate or master's programs in special 
education. Paper presented at the Council for 
Exceptional Children National Conference, 
Baltimore, MD. 
Haggstrom, G., Darling-Hammond, L, & Grissmer, 
D. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and de- 
mand. Santa Monica, CA Rand. 
Healy, C. C. & Welchert, A J. (1990). Mentoring 
relations: A definition to advance research and 
practice. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 17-21. 
Jones, G. (1991). Recruitment efforts to save a 
teacher preparation program. Journal of Visual 
Impairment and Blindness, 85, 29-30. 
Lauritzen, P. (1990). A model system for the 
assessment of personnel needs in education: 
New hires multiple component model. White- 
water, WI: University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 
Department of Special Education. 
McLaughlin, M., Smith-Davis, J., & Burke, P.J. (1986). 
Personnel to educate the handicapped in 
America: A status report. College Park, MD 
University of Maryland, Institute for the Study 
of Exceptional Children and Youth. 
Miller, L M., Thomson, W. A, & Roush, R. E. (1989) 
Mentorships and the perceived educational 
payoffs. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 465-467. 
Morsink, C. V., Thomas, C, & Smith-Davis, J. (1987). 
Noncategorical special education programs: 
Process and outcomes. In M. C. Wang, M. C. 
Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of 
special education research and practice ( pp. 
287-311). New York: Pergamon. 
P.L 99-457, 1986 Amendments to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act 20 USC 
§§ 1419, 1471-85 (1986). 
P.L 101-476, 1990 Amendments to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act 20 USC 
Chapter 33 (1990). 
Root, P., & Kennedy, R. (1990). Black teacher 
recruitment. Conway, AK: University of Central 
Arkansas, Center for Academic Excellence. 
Smull, M„ & Bunsen, T. (1989). Projecting the need 
for special education teachers. Counterpoint 
19(1), 4. ' 

Spero, I. K. (1987). The use of student financial aid 
to attract prospective teachers: A survey of state 
efforts. Journal of Student Financial Aid 
17(1), 37-48. 
U. S. Department of Education (1992). Fourteenth 
annual report to Congress on the implementa- 
tion of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa- 
tion Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special 
Education Programs, Division of Innovation 
and Development. 



256 



Supply and Capacity Pilot Study 

Bowen & Klass 

| 

" supported in part b)> the U. S. Department of ^^ 

Mack L Bowen^ Ph.D. -Department of Special- Education (Gmnt Na 29K00033-9l). The opin- 

ized Educational Development. Patricia H. Klass, . r __ 

Ed.D -Department of Educational Administration ions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the j. J 

and Foundations, Illinois State University. position or policy of the Department, and no official (| 

ne research reported in this paper was endorsement should be inferred. 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 



257 



I 



The 

NATIONAL 
AGENDA 

for the Education 

of Children and Youths 

with Visual Impairments, 

Including Those 
with Multiple Disabilities 



Authors 

Anne L. Corn 

Phil Hatlen 

Kathleen M. Huebner 

Frank Ryan 

Mary Ann Siller 



Members of the National Agenda Steering Committee 



i 
■ 



■ 

■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 
I 
i 
■ 

■ 
I 
■ 
■ 



CD 



in 



^o 



in 



04 



in 









CTn 



*-» 
C 
QJ 

»*^ 

C 
O 

w 

o 

OJ 



|2 



c w 

o -t: 



OJ C 
^£ 

"3 2 
g U 

c; ex, 
■S 6 



-5 Z ^ 



o> cc 
* J en 

5r o 



«3 

C 
Ol 
WD 

< 

"(3 

e 
o 

■J3 

2 

x\ 



c 

OJ 

e 

> 

Q 



c 

Ol 

e 

j-» 

en 

13 

o 
CJ 

T3 

O) 

WD 
< 

c 
o 
•xJ 

KS 

Z 



Ol 

£ 

0> 



en 

13 
o 
U 

Oi 



o 

Ol 

u 

c 
03 

.4-1 
V- 

o 

Oh 



o> 

6 

Ol 



en 

13 
o 

O 

o 

-C 

J— » 

bO 

•S 
> 

oi 

< 

V-i 

O 

CO 

o 

•5b 
o> 

B3 

h 
en 



c 

o 

e 

0) 

13 
en 

13 
o 
(J 

0) 



C 

Oi 



Ol 

> 

Ol 

u 

< 



t3 

O 
CD 



O 

'> 

< 
03 

C 
o> 
to 

< 



to 
J* 

0) 
T3 
03 

0) 

-1 

13 
o 

a 



6 r— *~i *£ 



r3 

C 

o 

■43 
RS 

Z 



03 

c 

z 



oj 

CO 

o 

C 

w 



~ LO OJ 




S o s 




7, OS 3 




■c; ■- eo 




^© « 




■£ — N 




•=r X. a 




3 .SPE 




to P ^ 




t; a 2 




- O 51 




£ u C- 




ts "* £-< 




C ,J i 




cs ■ i t$ 




dun 
abili 
Blin 












S 5 ^ 




v ii t 




o 1 a. o 




■ — ■ ^t— 








§ "3 £ 








O „ 03 




a ■S *a 




73 "S c 

w 3 g 




$o w o 




~ « u, 






o 
o 


^ so .a 


o 


genda 
cludin 
Amer 


1— 1 


^ 5 - 


^4 


*■— m 


k-c 


V »1 




a w a 

o s a, 


"S S =a 


2: -fc ±) 


2 


s < 






£-. -i XJ 


c^ 




■ S -a ^ -g ^ > 

o g *r w .i2 en - 

M o S fl 

QJ O «J ^ 



er. 



O <fl ^ ■•- , « 

i. 00 xr e ^ t. 
C .a 9 -C (ai c 



50 C »3" - 



a i> 

'S Ol i. 

■r 1 </l <- 

h a> — 



5 £ 



< 



T3 

■g 
5 

OJ 






as 

CO 
CN 

Gs 
CO 



tJ U C _ T-j 

S 2 S -S « 



-3 e 



2 

CD 



-Q 


OJ 




m 


<J 




01 


u 




~ , ^- 




o 


o 








t/5 


en 


r> 


01 
> 


^-^ 


■3 ^a 


e 


03 

3 


a 


< 


cr 

Ol 


0) 
-C 


T3 

5 


Ol 

> 

OJ 


c 

OJ 


CQ 


IS 





0) 


03 





X 




X. 




o 





Ih 




M— 


o 


-a 





c 


Ol 

.a 


6 


O 


n 





■ja 


Cj-t; 


03 

13 


1 


0) 

55 


O 


03 
3 


1 
s 


C 


(fl 





■5 


OJ 


•c 

01 


O 
T3 


1 


< 


S 


X, 

4-* 


OJ 


,£> 




01 

!3 


.r> 


o 






c 





2 


o 


5 


O 


en 


Cu 


1 


§ 


Cu 
O 





in 
1- 

OJ 


c 



Cl, 03 



O 




II s 



■ 
I 
■ 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
■ 

I 





1 
A 
60 




3 


T3 


.b 


03 


<u 


T) 


A 


C 


4-1 


W 


o 


& 


OJ 


'2 


0) 
f 1 


o 


<n 


u 


C 


ex 
o 


U 


rr 


r^ 


0) 

> 


3 


Xl 


n 


«s 


01 


V) 


> 


T3 


bfi 


.a 


C 


<U 


ni 


A 


<U 


4 -' 


X 






o 


01 




> 



Z^ CZ ^> 



< 

Q 
Z 

UJ 

< 



zo 

Ouj 

>^ 

UJ u. 

QO 





< un 


QH 


zz 


UJ UJ 


52 S 


< U4 


3* 


Z\si 


O j 


P< 


5o 


zo 




C 11 S 73 

a -5 '5 S 



- sn .2 g 

O) Ol U T3 

-a qj 3 to 

> 2 .5 o 

QJ a; co W2 to 

e « i *s 

1/) TO 



oi 
d 35 jfl 



"s -2 =3 

nj ra 05 •«* .a 

C II I V "" 

1 8 "2 

,_, S "« -C 

C B o> g « ; 

3 § « 5 ■? 

s --e -s > $ 

e 3 5 <U C 

%• % ^ T, « 

% - g « 8 

« TJ •£ qj ^ to 

U- o <u a C oj 

o S u 

&. 3 £ 

03 W l-c 



2 d 3 
^ w S 

> < 



re 



00 



rC O •£ 



01 



« < 



N 



'to __ 

Sue 

* - <* 'to 

« . tJ £0 3 

CO 



i/> 



1) 



- C ■? 

c/) O J- 1 

2 « rc 

5 2-d 

^s X o 

0) j-i rj 



.2 -o o 

I II 8 -5 iG 

C 11 3 r- -2 C 



01 



— — 5 a 

« v o 3 



3 ^ TO 



C 11 

P to 

__ § QJ 

S, « -6 "6 3 £ 

1 f w IS of i8 § 

RJ -"J JJ li 

</> £ o 

W w oj 01 -G S rj 

"^ 1— r^ UJ ^^ 



|i| W 01 Ol rC tl QJ 

- ^ SJ & - 6 ™ 

C — X o QJ c to 

Ol TO ■" C T3 H C 

r^ -5 **?« n . rr. K R 



TO 
C 

0) 



d a ■" C T3 R > 

C 3 "** O- TO 5 o 

-- 1 C QJ ^ i-J nj 

8 I 1 2 - 2 

en T3 > xi >^ 

2 "OJ ^ TOr2"S""i2 

S o> y o» ^j w j2 

11 ±i r 'D .. 11 TO 

01 c „ 5: 01 

TO •— -J- •" -pi t3 I- T! 

3 I -2 1 ^ 



n C TO 

13 o C 



o 

DO 



v .a 



tn 



Ol 



N 4-1 h 



C QJ 

TO 



QJ Za 




in 

Z 

s 

UJ 

jfjE 

UJ -4 

^ < 
ZO 

^ UJ 

o = 

SO 




—I 3 1/; 

t-s «S *5 
0J .2 M P 

ii-sf 

»3 d ^ 

c c <u 

<T3 "3 .5 I 

w-i J2 «^ oj 

2 K 1 g 

8 a I I 
5>"2 > o 

"3 g 3 

^ o 2 o 
m S3 I S 

B n 4) 13 

■£ .c * 52 
•S o I 

(TJ ~ -X3 ^ 





1) .-" CO 01 

— .ti > 




3 
V 



— c 



^ c 53 



&c 



S 8 g S -2 

s c > s « 

W £ r- O <J 

- g -5 Cu 13 

" o ? o « 

"£ £- c ^ .5 

8 ° «s « q 

a, u — 73 -r-t 

fa o ro .-t: £ 

° "5. ° = 

•S ^ 13 

° m t. 

13 >> w C C 

i 5 c ui M) 

— t -3 — O 

3 3 Q *■• >- 

5! " c 3 a 

aj S3 o jd 

tn * (0 cn fa 

12 - 3 aj o 

C ro 3 "O O 

3 £ ~ 

« c S S :- 

•a -2 I « | 

e « > t s 

f3 ' 



(ft 

3 I 









•— (ft 



c <u ■- ji — 
2 H g 









M 



"' C 



01 






<U 01 

-" o 



o ■£ 3 

JS -~ 13 

^SJ "C ^3 

° o S 

2 £ <u 

rt QJ £ 



3 

cr 

0) 



c 
a; 

6 

Ei 

'Jc 

Cu 

£ 

"re 
3 

'> 

X, 



C 
<v 
13 

5 






C/) 



U 

"3 O* C :/> 

3 £ S I ,, 

in aj c fa y 
> £ a .fa n 

O fa° b §. 1 

c O (C fa u 

q 3 $ — a 
men 









X 

a; 

c 
o 

13 

0> 
en 
03 



13 3 



u ■— 



> 

-3 

13 

C 

f3 

GO 

C 

'5b 



c 
o 

a, 
o 

c 
o> 

£ 

0) 

ca 

a. 



2 -3 13 



X 3 








00 



3 S 



3 8 2 2 -S 

s x S -p 8 

- " 5 ° " 

7) 



vj IS o 

C c tn 

JJ O Tj 

5 <U C 



0) . 

C to 

u "S 
IX £X 



0) 3 
to XL 



^x 2 ^ .at, 

° *i C 05 JD 

ft to to "2 — 

o T3 -O eg JS 



>> 



tI 3 " i « 

U O r h " 
Cl,T3 •= . w 

IP S .2 I ^ 

■-i TO ra C m 
H3 _, C i-i 

j^ ,G .*-. nj 0) 

ra a c ai tfi 

sp SL'I "2 
^ c 5 

-St? 

2- a g o 

3 TO ■£ 
— . K X <U 
TO 00 <U X) 




TO ^ W 

r*^ TO ■> 

7i C ^ 



X 

u 

3 



o 



1JJ (/) 






OL ui 




*■* 

«2 

'Z 
a. 
o re 

II 
■1 

*- yr 
a; C 

v. O 

■° re" 

^ _ s 

<y c s 

SS E 



E 

.re 



a> 



■a 
c 
re 



</> 



1 = 



IS. 
E.S 

5JD2 

£.1 

C "O 

o a; 

•5t3 
re a> 

y a 

3 wo 

■a 3 




en 

0) 

'55 



_o 
"o 

c 

o 

c H 

o qj 



■3-e a 

C K! U 

•- CO QJ 
-7-j QJ l- 

S "- 1 o 

to (Li 



Ol QJ 



3 

£ 






qj 






8 5 



o 



s 2 - 3 



sis 

= I c 
.2 > ■- 

y -a o 

£ -S 

c 

(8 






c 
o 

■J3 

-; >" S 

O n 3 

' £ "3 

fa a) "d 



C '35 

KS qj « K 

"3 a r- ^ 

3 - 5 o 



c 

QJ 



J3 2 6 c ** ? 

% * 3 a .s -o 



05 

01 

qj 



QJ 

X 

in 

(0 
QJ 



o c 



y '5 c 

£ ! •? 

« g 5 

1 5 ■ = 

vX- 1/5 

B jST 

2 y ^ 

•rj fC ~ 

u a> — 

E g > 

I e % I 

-d — 7 qj 

e ? - S 




I I * * * 



to .5 'C £ 



■5 3 

o £ 

u ■£ 

cc -"5 

■- X « 

00 Ph to 

OJ « O 

« 43 £ 

h 0) 

CO oi C 

SJ T3 ^ 

U o u 

—' c 



to 



CD 



3 -a 

u c 

>■< nj 

1 s c 

(3 « -2 

-4-» ro 

w « a, 

J< -g -s 

< K > 

z S £ 

I— 1 -T-J > 

o 






«j to 



r c VP 

- K T3 5 

«. "5 P -3 

T3 "- in £ 

5 2 O .23 

o to a; Cu 

01 




m 





a, = 

3 ra 

c „ 
<" re 

s s. 

S g 
a* o 

1-1 
•i-g- 

a r 

_ re 

.*= a. 
3= . 

2i « « 

3 *- o 

■a to C 

w c 

O <K C 

*- •- o 
o.re~3 

■a a-re 

= = 3 
re re = 

-J.2 ° a, 

o o wd*: 




2 


2 


<T3 


JZ 


y 


01 




$ 


H 


"*"' 


> 


io 


< 


c 


C^ 


r 


2 


jl{ 


< 


Oi 


-a 

Oi 


'? 


2 


T3 
5 


-n 






to 


c 

01 


X 


■u 




en 


OI 
ITS 


O 


£ 


Xi 


0) 


R 


nj 


(X 


o 
u 


to 
UJ 


fci 


0) 
C 



TJ Si a ... 

„, Oi X «j 

— o 2 cu 

& k (11 ' 

•43 a, w 



to 

c £ 

re 



bo 

o 



o 
■.a 

o 
■a 5 ' 

(1i H 



0> 
,H to 

u. rs 
O -Q 



-C2 

<2 "J a 
Q 2 Q 



•5 "^ 

a. _ 

c re 

8 | 

X vSi 

■" o 

■„ c 



o 

GO 

c 
o 






60 ^ 

»*H Ql 

re -a 
a. re 

2 *S 



I g 

P o 

"~ oi 

■2 ■£ 

'I -S - 

o C 2 

<£ re C 

.2 DOR 




to 

3 -g | 

re re 

" J & g 

a» o> 

p -° £ 

S Q 



T3 

c 
re 

CO 

T3 

o> 

CD 
c 



o re 

*- ex 

ex cu 

£ ^ 
o 



0) 



c S, 

c a. 
a, 3 

O to 

> £ 

re c 

c c 



o 

to 
ii 

o> 

ex, 

C 

re 

en 
I-. 
(Li 
T3 
> 
O 



^ .y 



to o 

O 

C 
to0;3 

■S .2 



o 




OI 
01 


c 


to 




h 


T3 


i- 






53 


O* 

r; 




o 


b 


u 

u 

re 


C 


tO 


0) 

> 


OI 


tU 


o> 


\c 



Cu 

_o 
> 

OJ 
T3 



60 

C 



c 
_o 

re 

.a 

c 

re 
60 



a "° 6 



cu 5 
Cu .2 

to to 



<o -2 



s 

re 
o 

Cu 

c 
o 







HI 

•a 

.SSo) 

= * E 

5 ra a 

1/1 •"= E 

4> 5 M 

u > re 

•= re «* 

<u 2. J= 

\n re *■* 



c re 

s « 

c.2 
re ^j 

25 
1 = 

ai *- 
> <u 
at w 

■a c 

-si 

< g re 
U< re 



re 



■a 




c 




re 




re 








"8 




E 




01 




** 




re 






M 


i_ 


^B4 


D. 


■^ 


O 




k. 




a. 


L* — . 


a. t lifl 


re 


5 1 


01 


Dl ^^ 


a 


■a 


c 


** — - - 





J= Egfll 


a 


=* wl 


c 


*K ■ 


<u 


i> 


"O 




3 


a 


*•> 


•C iM 




K 



lu 

LU 

wo 



^ 



en 

T3 

.s 

re 
CX, 

S 
>^ 



a 




> 








*-> 
an 








'2 








> 




SU 


c 


D 








TS 




SU 


o 


-»-» 








C 




ts 




na 








ra 




5 


u 

Tl 


jo 

OJ 
T3 








-a 


In 

OJ 

C 

JO 


o 




C 








cu 


QJ 


U 


£ 








QJ 
X 


3 


E 

o 
U 


u 
a, 


QJ 

ai 




c 


4—* 

c 

QJ 






J 


'o 


o 
U 


0? 


re 

X 


G 
QJ 


O 

o 
n 


QJ 
QJ 


r 


o 


.^ 


•~-| 


_ 


c 

•fi 

QJ 

3 


u 


J- 


c 
< 

D 


en 

to 
qj 
^-« 

o 

'— 


T3 
O 

JO 
ra 

QJ 
Ph 


> 

X 

<Si 

ra 

2 





a) 

ra 

X 


i-J 

D 







LO 



LU 



UU 



LU < 

50 



> LU 

<o 



T3 C ^ 

G -2 .55- 

ra *- 

bo S "3 

G 3 ><2 

•£ "a < 

5 u := 

c •£ S 

a> r. 

S ^ 8 

"-4-H 

O « 



§-£ 



"ra o C .s 



ra 

o _ 
v M) C 

S?j= <" 



QJ ra qj 



(fl _; qj 

- -a c/> 

QJ QJ 



S <" 



EBJ 

i- tj ■« [_ 

SI QJ . — i L 



QJ QJ 

' QJ 

C 



TS X 



ts H 

o ^ "§ 



So 
° ^ 

CM T3 

S 3 , « 4- 



QJ 



ra 

> ?, - s 



.j f "£ 

~ QJ 



QJ 



X W) ra > 

<y a < x & 






i=) 



t/1 

TTi -- 1 <J"> 

aJ u QJ 

ra " 



c § S ra 
f? i_ ra qj b 





£i ■£ ra o ^ 



"3 •£ ia < . w 

JO qj « • «J * 

^u qj qj re tt ra 

.•G 3 JS o ° X. 

J2 QJ ■" 

JO o 



-a 

.« QJ ^ UJ I VL/ 



o 

Silc 

QJ 




ct 

UJ 

Q 
< 

UJ 



c c 

o re 

.2 3 



5 < 



< 

o 
o 



OI o 

.3 - 

(Z c 



2 
'0 

(X 

LO 



^ re > 



en h— 



> 



Q 

c 

o 



* U S M (J 






CO 



".n o 



5 3 3 

o w w 



u 



o 

Oh 



ON 

(N re 

<- C 



c 
o 

I-. 

re 
to 



a in 



c 
., o 
D U 



e 

o 
U 



en c 



73 
C 

S 
Oi 



re >-J 



T3 



PQ — i 

O 

£ O 

u 
CO 

"3 
C 
<T3 



8*8 



o 
o 



o 

O 73 

X c 

u i-* 

CO o 



01 

3 

c 

5 ° 

< t 

7 CM 

01 v£> 

60 tj- 

u 

o 
2 
in 

CM 

in 
in 



CD +* 



V 

re 
X, 
(J 



to 


Ql, 

re 
c 
re 



oo 



<7 Q 



a ^ 



CO 







< 

o 

< 

z 
o 

5 




u 










01 










Cu 










cr» 










M-i 










o 








1=3 


n 








<D 

b 










OI 


en 




<7\ 




Uh 


!> 




CO 




>■> 


Q 


n 


o 

00 


ON 


j2 


o 
-a 

re 


Q 

re 




u 




q 5 


o 


3 


^ in 

oi co 


4-t 

re 


o 


T7 


0) 
OI 


„ s 


I ) 


w 


CO 


C 






u 


CJ 


O 






u 


CO 


u 



go 
So 

zo 

O £ 

z< 



c 

u 

re 
EX 



0) 

Du, 

13 
01 

U 

're 
D-, 



re 
3 
en 

> 



73 
33 
en 

O 
D- 



O 
o 

en 

i 
« s 

fr.2 



en 



O 


en 


'A 


en 




<1) 


■> 


*-*— i 


-o 


O 


< 


Cu 


o> 


T5 


p 


c 
re 




ii »-» en re 

S t- C j: 

cu o y 

. a u g 

D U 2 



c 

l-c 

re 



c 
o 

re 
'0 

JS tn 
ej en 

■G < 

2 "re 

< § 

re re 



T3 

.a 

re 
Cu 

S 

% < 
1 u 

>re 
en 



g> 



Q 

O 

U 

c 

o 



n 

QJ 

.a 

re 
Cu 

6 

re 
3 
en 

> 



11 


o 


x\ 


& 








re 


o 


c 




re 




C/3 



« o 
w ■§■ g 

>-. K re 



*? . &H 



"3d 

o U 

c^ .3 

T-l ^ 

^< 

£3 oi v 

c U u 
oi to -r 

2 I g 

C/3 en P 

O 



3 
Q 
en 

o" 

T3 
V 

.3 
a; 

3 ** 

C '2 



u re 

oi p 

01 > 

U « 



&r c§ § -g 



■§ 2 
u o 

,01 X 

H ti 

T3 

C 
re 



a; 

re 
u 
CD — 1 



»— J e\j 

6JD Q 

3 

o 

p< 

3 g 

o 3 

re .-J 

- S 

oi ^3 

.3 a» 

Oh f* 



o .2 *2 



G 

0) 

to 



o 

en 
> 
T3 
< 

-a 

c 
re 

C 
o 
-si 

re 
u 
3 
13 

W 



3 
O 

E 

5 



CQ 



3 

5 
o 

<" s 

en <3 

o Si 

ev m 

s § 

eu U 

3 

to 



iJi 



OJ 
O) 

z 



VO 



I— 



LU 

o 

Q 

2 

LU 



5 £ c 

3 « 3 

3 £ > 



u "1 5 

u C 

O ^ — 

(J O C2 

.U J, 

» ~ X 

< .2 o 

o -s ^ 
(J z 



en 



kj a; 

rt o 




X co 

C ^r 

vC — 

in CN 



CO 
IrMI 



u 

< 



< 






r8 K 

S 3 



o 2 

<^ -5 

QJ (/> 

c* > 

^ Si 

c ■£ 

E e 

en a; 

5 C 

^ u 



ca 

C 
O 

■c 

u 



a; 
C 

0) 

•- 1 > 
& < 

C en 



1) 

u 



^/rt X 



CO cs| 



c 
o 

4-1 

fa 

Q 



C3 

3 



cn 



c * y <n 



£ 



ca co 
c m 
f5 SS U 



u 

TO 
C 

o 



in T3 

s I 

M .fcj * 

O ca i_ 

^ d,o 

O C in 

8 1 :- 

in SG • 



C 

o 

V2 is! 

T3 *■" 



C 

o 
u- 

c 

CO 



in 
QJ 

C 
TJ 
C 

S 

C 
O 



<i>520 



a 



CO 



01 

c •£ c 

■2 •*- -2 

a ca 

2 2 



C3 CO H 

c c 3 

o o w 

•J3 X! < 

ra n3 

2 2 



qj 

c 

bp-,8 

^1 

X £ 

QJ 

C5 



C in 
OJ !T 

u > 

bo £ 

C o 



•a "9 

.1-, c 
H ca 



13 
C 
C3 

<S 

OJ 

P 



§ a 

w -g 

H C3 

f 5 

cn < 



QJ 



TS C3 

< 



-a 

c 

.S ca 

« Q 

_ •£ x 

- ^ £ 
O 3 "S — 

« o R 

"S « en 

cS .2 o 

^ C T3 

S o 2 
D 3 .2 

<T3 O 

u u 



T3 
C 
(8 

TO 
QJ 

D 

QJ 



o 

T3 2 T3 

£ u S 

3 tn ^ 

CQ ro W 
QJ T3 



i j QJ 

o 




z < < 



i 
i 

■ 
I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

I 

■ 

■ 

■ 

I 

I 
■ 

pi 



CO 

3 

CO 


to 

c 




-^ 3 




Cu 

£ 




co 


> 


< 




£ > 3 




2 




o 
x; 
cj 

CO 


o 
o 
XJ 
u 
CO 

c 


e 

CO 

O 

Ih 

Cu 




00 ° cn" 

« 6 g 
Is 2 ^ 

D 2 w 


< 

U 
en 


CO 
O 

o 

X 
o 
to 

£* 




x> 

3 v 
^ 2 . 


3 

o 
U 


■a 

oi 
.b 




<u u h 


U 

CO 






(0 

Q 


co 

Cu 
g 


< 

<J 


< -^ c 

co i— ' <—• 
o 


1 


£ 

01 


2 


£ 2 

0) 

2 



u 

c 

01 

bo 

< 



Ol 

co 

c I-h 

tO OJ 

3 co 

ex, 

CO 



£ 

to 

o 



U 



c Q 

•2 c 

I I 

•^ bO 

^ J 

Q w 



I s 

a i> -3 

6 a J 

T3 •= ■£ 

3 m-. oi 

CO ° « 

T! 'O C 

.3 O 

co oa 



►5 o 

co T3 

3 < 

co ^ 

i> 



c 
o> 
U 

C/3 

Ol 

o 

I 

01 
CO 



01 

> 

en 

'3 
o 






CO 



> 




(fl Ifl < 






cu 

h3 


5 

o> 






Ih 


<u 2 






o 


-3 








53 73 






73 


1- C 




< 
u 


sburgh Guil 
ttsburgh, PA 


rvices fo 
yn,NY 
r the Bli 




en 

(11 


oi 2 o 

to o "*- 
h o "a 




to 
c 

< 


rPitt 
d,Pi 


Kelle 
d, Br 
Guil 


n 


en 




Si S 


elen 
Blin 
wish 


_l 




>- 




cj 


X A 






I Ei 



£P ."3 H <J 

X) -G 

en (8 Pi 

t X m 

C oi > 



< 



OJ 



3 W (? X < 



I oi I 
X 
H 



3 <J 

o 

CO 



o 

73 

c 
O 



CO -S 



cj 
O 
en 

CO 

< 

C 

O 



2 s 



CO 



II 



■a 
a, 

CO 

73 
C 
to 



a .a cj 

CO CO w 

> > 



C 
01 
CO 
< 

c 

u 

3 
T3 

W 



0) 

•c 

X 

U 

cj 

;a 
o 



fa 

O Ih CO 
J Ch U 



en Oi 
cu .b 
.y re 



Ol 
CO 

c 
o 
■v 

CO 

u 

3 

-a 
w 



(0 
3 
co 

i> 

T3 

C 

•S -s 

CO 
2 



2 w 



r- 5) 
CD < 



o U 

O CO 

o C 

CO o 



3 ra 

u u 

c ^ 

O _U 

en 'C 

u 



.. o 

c 
fo js 

2 % 

Ch o 

_; e- 

CO 

C en 

■2 y 
Eb'S 
oi C 

C4 oi 

"i -2 

3 co 

o 

u 



CO 



Ih ^ 

O 33 



O 

o 
u 

CO 
01 

CO 

CO 

3 
O 



Ih 

— 



_CO 

O 

o 
tj -n 

OT .s 

CO 33 



CJ 

CO 



> 3 
01 



| ^ > ^ fc ,5 



co 

3 
co 

> 

Ol 



U 



T3 
Oi 

Ch 
O. 

CO 
ej 



B 

CO "O 

3 C 

O CO 

O 1-TH 

co Jh 




"(0 

3 
co 

> 

C 
co ' 



T3 

.b 
CO 
Cu 

s 

_>> 

"co 
3 



T3 

3 


j3 


~^ 


> 


C J 


Oi 


OJ 


CQ 


-n 


01 


X. 


u 


Oi 


3 


Ih 


O 




<0 


n 


HH 


(0 


5 


Cw 


Ih 


n 


Ih 


3 


M 




QJ 

C 


Ol 






QJ 


u 






u 



OJ 

^^ 

O =3 
Oi CO 
CU 3 

Ih .2 
£ > 

SI o 
Q c 
-3 CQ 

60 0) 



J < 

bo _g 

3 I 
U 



>o 

3 
co 

> 

c^^ 
O u. 

•a cu 
U « 
T3 U 

<JJ en 
■ b ^3 

Oh Ih 

3 T3 



o 



$ 



u 



C J2 

"3 3 

U, 3 

. o 

T3 5 

■a ^ 

CO QJ 

Cux 

^§ 

u. 

u 



3 ft! 

o 2 

la 2 

2 oi 

J3 0) 

QJ Ih 

c< cj 



B 



^33 

33 ra 

g D 

«a 3 

K> 0) 

u >u 

o 2 

HH 3J 

CO r3 

a; .b 

CO co 

co Cu 

co 3 

33 £ 
CO 

Q 



OJ 




u 




_V_j 




X 




bO 








(75 


<r 


\ 


Ch 


-o 




S 


Ih 

0) 


CO 


en 

0) 


o 


X 


_u 


u 




£> 



CD 
00 

CD 

O 

U 

2 
> 



0> 

> 



Ch en 



aj to 

> 



en 



■ c 



< 



o 

.a 
< 



O O 



o 
-a 
rcs 



I* 

D 



o 
Z 

o 

> 
■2 
D 



O 



10 

B £P 

QJ -3 

■£ £ 

o S « 

2E ^ 
o 

o o £ 

qj at 3 
> > r-5 

•2 '2 m 



>^ 



m cu i 

p at at 

13 H •§ 

U £?> 2 

•£ '55 ^ 

§ £ re 



o D | 
"«5 -5 P 

M tl C 

at oj S 
> ^ -^ 

ill 



T3 

at 
'-E U 



en 






c 
at 
U <u 

i- rS 

O i_ 



-C 


to 

0) 

u 


T3 
CD 

a. 




IT) 


> 


Li- 






ra 
CJ 




D 


cd 






ai 


TJ 




o> 


at 


c 




u 




m 




QJ 






5 


rn 


o 


=3 


£ 


c 


c 


«3 

-1 


o 


o 


to 


U 


I/) 


to 


*> 


01 



<u 5 

-w (TJ 

C CO 



J U 



> > 

5 5 

o 






c 

QJ 

u 

c 
o 

I < 
*!* 

(0 



WD 

C 
O 



— i QJ 

ra A 

'* - S 

cj 3 3 

• s < u 

O o <u 

.a a o 

3 c -a at 

j: j2 w W 

6 < 



> 

o 

2 

T3 

QJ 

irr 1 ra 
2 C 
►3 TO 

ra 2 
co O 
> l-O 



CUD 



5 -P 





> >*H 



*&S&" ■■- 



XO^^V 



?*' 






\\ov\ 



Higher Education Programs for Personnel Preparation 

in Visual Impairments / Blindness 

in the United States 



ARIZONA » 

University of Arizona 

Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation 

Education Bldg., Room 412 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

Phone 520-621-7822 

FAX 520-621-3821 

TTY 520-621-9724; 602-621-7822 

Head of department/program 

Amos Sales 

UG-DEAF 

G - ND, DEAF, LD, BLD . NDA, SEVR, INFT, PRES, BILING, 

RHAB.GIFT 

D - ADMIN, EBD, BILING, LD, PRES, DEAF, GIFT, BLD . 

AUT, DBL, MR, MULT, SEVR, MCULT, RHAB 

ACRD CEC-NCATE; STATE 

ARKANSAS ~ 

University of Arkansas- Little Rock 

Department of Teacher Education 

2801 South University 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

Phone 501-569-3124; Fax 501-569-8694 

Head of department/program 

William Geiger 

UG - DEAF 

G - DEAF, MILD, RES, CONS, GIFT, PRES, INFT, BLD . 

SEVR 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

CALIFORNIA .. 

California State University- Los Angeles 

Division of Special Education 

5151 State University 

Los Angeles, C A 90032 

Phone 213-343-4400; Fax 213-343-4318 

Head of department/program 

Philip C. Chinn 

G - SEVR, ORTHO, BLD, GIFT, RES, BILING, INFT PRES 
CONS, LD 
D - GSPED 

Accreditation 
STATE 



St. Mary's College of California 

School of Education 

P.O. Box 4350 

Moraga.CA 94575 

Phone 510-631-4700; Fax 510-376-8379 

Head of department/program 

Candy Boyd 

G - AUT, DBL, MODSEV, MR, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, TBI, 

BLD, GSPED, LD, MILD, EBD, SPCH 

Accreditation 

STATE 

COLORADO .. 

University of Northern Colorado 

Division of Special Education 

McKee318 

Greeley, CO 80639 

Phone 970-35 1 -269 1 ; Fax 970-35 1-1016 

TTY 970-351-1672 

Head of department/program 

Allen M. Huang 

UG - SEVR, GSPED 

G - MODSEV, SPCH. DEAF, BLD, MODSEV, EBD, GIFT 

A - ADMIN, GSPED 

D - ADMIN, GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

FLORIDA ■■ 

Florida State University 

Department of Special Education 

205 Stone Building 

Tallahassee, FL 32306-3024 

Phone 904-644-4880; Fax 904-644-8715 

Specialnet FSU/GTEES 

Head of departme. n .t/pro°ram 

Mark A. Koorland 

UG - MR, MODSEV, BLD 

G - BLD, EBD, MR, MILD, SEVR, AUT, INFT, PRES, TRAN, 

LD, CORR, ASTEC, MULT, DBL, MODSEV 

D - ADMIN, RESEA, TED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 



May, 1996 
111.96 



GEORGIA •- 

Georgia State University 

Department of Educational Psychological & Special Education 

University Plaza 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone 404-651-2310; Fax 404-651-2555 

Electronic Mail: Interneteperpc@gsusgl2.gsu.edu 

Head of department/program 

Ronald P. Colarusso 

G - SPCH, DEAF, EBD, GSPED, LD. MR, MILD, AUT, DBL, 

ORTHO, ELD, PRES, MODSEV, MULT, SEVR 

A - GSPED 

D - EBD, GIFT, LD, MR, MODSEV, ORTHO, SEVR 

Accreditation 

STATE 

ILLINOIS - 

Illinois State University 

Specialized Educational Development 

DeGarmo Hall 533 

Campus Box 5910 

Normal, IL 61790 

Phone 309-438-8980; Fax 309-438-8699 

TTY 309-438-3467 

Electronic Mail: Internet pjsmith@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu 

Head of department/program 

Paula J. Smith 

UG - EBD, MR, MILD, MODSEV, SEVR, ELD, DEAF, 

MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, LD 

G - EBD, MR, MILD, MODSEV, SEVR, ELD, DBL, DEAF, 

MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, ADMIN, GSPED, LD, COUN 

D - ADMIN, TED 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Northern Illinois University 

Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and 

Special Education 

237 Graham Hall 

DeKalb, IL 60115 

Phone 815-753-1000; Fax 815-753-9250 

Head of department/program 

Diane E. D. Deitz 

UG - EBD, LD, MR, MILD, BLD . MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, 

HLTH, SEVR, DEAF, DFINT, ND 

G - AUT, DBL, DEAF, MR, MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, 

HLTH, SEVR, SPCH. ELD, LD, RHAB. EBD 

D - EBD, GSPED, LD, MR, MILD, MODSEV, SEVR, BLD 

Accreditation 

STATE 



INDIANA - 

Butler University 

Department of Education 

4600 Sunset Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46208 

Phone 317-283-8000; Fax 317-283-9930 

Electronic Mail: Internet meyer@ruth.buUer.edu 

UG - EBD, LD, MR, ELD, ADMIN, MULT 

G - EBD, LD, MR, ELD, ADMIN, MULT 

Accreditation 

STATE 

KENTUCKY - 

University of Louisville 

Department of Exceptional and Remedial Education 

Louisville, KY 40292 

Phone 502-852-6421; Fax 502-852-1419 

Head of department/program 

Anne Netick 

G - EBD, LD, MR, MODSEV, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, BLD . 

TBI 

A - EBD, LD, MR, MODSEV, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, ELD, 

TBI 

D - MODSEV, LD, MR 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

LOUISIANA - 

University of New Orleans 

Department of Special Education and Habilitative Services 

Lakeftont 

New Orleans, LA 70148 

Phone 504-286-6609; Fax 504-286-5588 

Head of department/program 

James H. Miller 

UG - MILD 

G - GIFT, DEAF, MILD, SEVR, ELD, DIAG 

D - GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

University of New Orleans 

Department of Health and Human Performance 

New Orleans, LA 70148 

Phone 504-286-6609; Fax 504-286-5588 

Head of department/program 

James Miller 

UG - MILD, ELEM 

G - SEVR, PRES, DEAF, ELD, DIAG 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 



■ 
I 
I 
■ 
I 
■ 

Pi 



May, 1996 
111.96 



MASSACHUSETTS - 

Boston College 

Department of Curriculum, Administration & Special 

Education 

Chestnut Hill, MA 02167 

Phone 617-552-8000; Fax 617-552-0812 

Electronic Mail: Internet riordan@bcvms.bc.edu 

Head of department/program 

John Savage 

UG - MODSEV, MULT, SEVR, GSPED, MR 

G - MULT, BLD . MODSEV, SEVR, EBD, GSPED, LD, MR, 

MILD 

D - GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

Fitchburg State College 

Department of Special Education 

McKay Teacher Education Center 

Fitchburg, MA 01420 

Phone 508-665-3308 

Electronic Mail: Internet smillerjacob@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu 

Head of department/program 

Sandra Miller Jacobs 

UG - SEVR, MODSEV, MULT, CONS, TRAN, VOC, BLD . 

EBD, LD, MR, MILD, RES, SEC, CONS, ELEM 

G - SEVR, MODSEV, MULT, CONS, TRAN, VOC, EBD, LD, 

MR, MILD, RES, SEC, CONS, ELEM 

Accreditation 

STATE 

MICHIGAN ■■ 

Eastern Michigan University 

Department of Special Education 

Ypsilanti, MI 48197 

Phone 313-487-3301; Fax 313-487-7153 

TTY 313-487-4410 

Head of department/program 

Kathleen S. Quinn 

UG - ORTHO, HLTH, ELEM, SEC, MR, fiLD, DEAF, EBD 

G - ORTHO, HLTH, MR, B.LD, DEAF, LD, ELEM, SEC, 

ADMIN, SPCH, SLPTH, PSYCH, ADPE 

A - ADMIN, CURRIN 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



Michigan State University 

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and 

Special Education 

447 Erickson Hall 

East Lansing, MI 48824 

Phone 517-355-1835; Fax 517-353-6393 

Head of department/program 

Richard Prawat 

G - MR, ELEM, SEC, EBD, LD, DEAF, B_LD_, DBL, PSYCH, 

ADMIN 

D - ADPE, TED 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Western Michigan University 

Department of Special Education 

Kalamazoo, MI 49008 

Phone 616-387-5935; Fax 616-387-5703 

Electronic Mail: Specialnet WMUSE 

Internet alonzo.hannaford@wmich.edu 

Head of department/program 

Alonzo E. Hannaford 

UG - MR, B_LP_, EBD 

G - MR, LD, BLD . EBD, ADMIN, INTEC 

D - GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

MINNESOTA - 

University of Minnesota 

Department of Educational Psychology 

Special Education Programs 

Room 227, Burton Hall 

178 Pillsbury Drive, SE 

Minneapolis, MN 55455 

Phone 612-624-2342; Fax 612-626-9627 

Head of department/program 

Frank B. Wilderson, Jr. 

G - EBD, INFT, PRES, LD, MILD, MODSEV, HLTH, VOC, 

BLD, DEAF 

D - EBD, INFT. PRES, LD, MILD, VOC, ADMIN, MODSEV, 

BLD . DEAF, HLTH 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 

3 



May, 1996 
111.96 



NFBRASKA -- 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Department of Vocational and Adult Education 

518 East Nebraska Hall 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0515 

Phone 402-472-721 1; Fax 402-472-5907 

Electronic Mail: Internet gmeers@unlinfo.unl.edu 

Head of department/program 

Gary Meers 

UG - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, £LD, 

ADPE, TED, TRAN, VOC, SEC, CORR 

G - AUT, DBL. EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT. ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLP, 

ADPE. TED. TRAN, VOC, SEC. CORR 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

NEW YORK - 

Columbia University, Teacher's College 

Department of Special Education 

Box 223 

New York, NY 10027 

Phone 212-678-3000; Fax 212-678-4034 

TTY 212-678-3837 

Head of department/program 

Dennis E. Mithaug 

G - EBD, LD, GIFT, DEAF, BLD . MR, INFT, PRES, RHAB 

D - MR, EBD, LD, GIFT, ORTHO, DEAF, BXD, ADMIN, 

INFT, PRES, ASTEC, INTEC, ND 

CUNY-Hunter College 

Department of Special Education 

695 Park Avenue, RM 91 3W 

New York, NY 10021 

Phone 212-772-4701; Fax 212-650-3815 

TTY 212-772-4702 

Head of department/program 

Marsha H. Lupi 

G - LD, MR, MILD, BILING, ELEM, SEC, DBL, EBD, CORR, 

MODSEV, MULT, SEVR, DEAF, BLD . GSPED 

Accreditation 

STATE 



CUNY-York College 

Special Education Program 

Jamaica, NY 11451 

Phone 718-262-2450; 718-262-2000; Fax 718-262-2730 

Electronic Mail: Internet userid@ycvax.yorkcuny.edu 

Head of department/program 

Hana Simonson 

UG - EBD, LD, MILD, MODSEV, MULT, BLD, ADPE, MR 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Dominican College of Blauvelt 

Department of Teacher Education 

10 Western Highway 

Orangeburg, NY 10962 

Phone 914-359-7800; Fax 914-359-2313 

Head of department/program 

Mike Kelly 

UG - AUT, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, TBI, NRS, DIAG, 

ELEM, MCULT, INFT, PRES, SEC, RES, TED, INTEC, 

cons, b_ld 

G - MR. MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO. HLTH, SEVR, RESEA, 

TBI, ELD, SEC, TRAN 

Accreditation 

STATE 

St. Joseph's College 

245 Clinton Avenue 

Brooklyn, NY 11205 

Phone 718-636-6800; Fax 718-622-5950 

Head of department/program 

Rosemary Lisser 

UG - AUT, EBD, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MULT, ORTHO, 

HLTH, SPCH, BLD . ELEM, TED, GSPED 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Teachers College, Columbia University 

525 W. 120th Street 

New York, NY 10027 

Phone 212-678-3873; Fax 212-678-4034 

Head of department/program 

Dennis Mithaug 

G - EBD, GSPED, DEAF, LD, MR, ORTHO, HLTH, BLD . 

PRES 

A - ADMIN, SLPTH, PRES, LD 

D - EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR. ORTHO, HLTH, 

ADMIN, TED, INTEC, RESEA 

Accreditation 

STATE 



! 






National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 



May, 1996 
111.96 



NORTH DAKOTA ~ 

University of North Dakota 

Department of CTL/Special Education 

Box 7189, University Station 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Phone 701-777-2511; Fax 701-777-4393 

Head of department/program 

Lynne Chalmers 

UG-MR 

G - EBD, GSPED, LD, BLD . INFT, PRES 

D - EBD, GSPED, LD, BXD, INFT, PRES, TED 

Accreditation 

STATE 

OHIO-- 



Ashland University 

Department of Education 

217 Bixler Hall 

Ashland, OH 44805 

Phone 419-289-4142; Fax 419-289-5097 

Head of department/program 

Merri Jamieson 

UG - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BJJ2, 

CONS, CURRIN, MCULT, INFT, PRES, RES, ASTEC, SEC 

G - AUT, LD, MR, MILD, MULT, SEVR, TBI, MODSEV, 

CONS, CURRIN, ELEM, MCULT, INFT, PRES, RESEA, RES, 

SEC, ASTEC 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

Ohio State University 

Educational Services and Research 

356 Arps Hall 

1945 North High 

Columbus, OH 43210 

Phone 614-292-6446; Fax 614-292-4255 

TTY 614-292-8769 

Electronic Mail: Internet magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu 

UG - LD, EBD, MR 

G - LD, EBD, DEAF, ORTHO, BLD . MULT, GIFT, ADMIN, 

HLTH, MR 

D - GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



OREGON - 

Portland Community College 

Education Program 

Cascade Campus, TH 234 

12000 SW 49th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97280 

Phone 503-244-61 11, X5229; Fax 503-240-5370 

Head of department/program 

Susan Larpenteur- Wells 

CP - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BJJ2, 

ELEM, MCULT, INFT, PRES, SEC, TRAN, VOC 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Portland State University 

Department of Special Educadon and Counselor Educadon 

P.O. Box 751 

Portland, OR 97207 

Phone 503-725-3000; Fax 503-725-5599 

Head of department/program 

Joel Arick 

G - MODSEV, BJLD, RHAB, COUN, ADMIN, CURRTN, 

ELEM, TED 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Western Oregon State College 

Division of Special Education 

Monmouth, OR 97361 

Phone 503-838-8000; 503-838-8322; Fax 503-838-8474 

TTY 503-838-8322 

Electronic Mail: Specialnet WEST.OR.STATE.COLL/OREGON 

Internet holdtb@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu 

Head of department/program 

Betty P. Holdt 

UG - AUT, DBL, MR, TBI, fiLD, DEAF, DFTNT, BILING 

G - MILD, LD, MR, EBD, CONS, CURRIN, DIAG, RES, SEC, 

AUT, DBL, TBI, fiLD, INFT, PRES, DEAF, TRAN, MCULT, 

ELEM, BILING 

Accreditation 

STATE 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 
800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 
703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) ' 



May, 1996 
111.96 



PENNSYLVANIA - 

Duquesne University 

Department of Counseling, Psychology & Special Education 

Special Education Program 

Pittsburgh, PA 15282 

Phone 412-396-5567; Fax 412-396-5585 

Electronic Mail: Internet maola@duq2.cc.duq.edu 

Head of department/program 

Julia Ann Hartzog 

UG - AUT, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, LD, MR, MODSEV, MULT, 

ORTHO, HLTH, DBL, SPCH, TBI, BJJ), MILD 

G - AUT, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, LD, MR, MODSEV, MULT, 

ORTHO. HLTH, DBL, SPCH, TBI, BJLD, MILD, ADPE, PT, 

PSYCH, CURRIN, MCULT, RES, TRAN, VOC 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 

Department of Special Education 

Kemp Special Education Center 

Kutztown, PA 19530 

Phone 610-683-4000; Fax 610-683-4255 

Head of department/program 

Ray Dalfonso 

UG - BJLD, SPCH, SLPTH, EBD, LD, MR, MILD, MULT, 

SEVR, MODSEV, ND 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

Pennsylvania College of Optometry 

Department of Graduate Studies in Vision Impairments 

1200 West Godfrey Avenue 

Philadelphia, PA 19141 

Phone 215-276-6169; Fax 215-276-6292 

Head of department/program 

Alana Zambone; Kathlene M. Huener 

G-BJJ3, RHAB 

CP-RHAB.1LD 

Accreditation 

STATE 

University of Pittsburgh 

Programs of Special Education 

4H01 Forbes Quadrangle 

Pittsburgh, PA 15260 

Phone 412-624-7247; Fax 412-648-7081; TTY 412-624-7251 

Electronic Mail: Internet gjz@vm2.cis.pitt.edu 

Head of department/program 

George J. Zimmerman 

G - BLD, SEVR, MULT, DEAF, MILD, LD 

D - BJJ3, SEVR, MULT, DEAF, MILD, LD, GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



PUERTO RICO - 

University of Puerto Rico 

Rio Piedras 

Department of Education 

Box 23304 

Rio Piedras, PR 00931 

Phone 809-764-0000, x3504; Fax 809-763-4130 

Head of department/program 

Consuelo Castro 

UG - EBD, DEAF, MR, MODSEV, SPCH, BJLD, ELEM 

G - RHAB, COUN, ADMIN, CURRIN, INTEC, DBL, MULT, 

SPCH, MILD, GIFT, SEVR 

SOUTH CAROLINA - 

University of South Carolina 

Department of Educational Psychology 

Columbia, SC 29208 

Phone 803-777-5743; Fax 804-777-3068 . 

Electronic Mail: Internet mitchel@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu 

Head of department/program 

Kathleen J. Marshall 

D - ADMIN, GSPED 

G - EBD, LD, MR, MODSEV, BJLD, PRES 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

TENNESSEE ■■ 

Peabody College at Vanderbilt University 

Department of Special Education 

Box 328 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Phone 615-322-7311; Fax 615-343-1570 

Electronic Mail: Internet riethhj@ctrvox.vanderbilt.edu 

Head of department/program 

Herbert Rieth 

UG - SEVR, DEAF, MILD, BLD . INFT, PRES 

G - SEVR, BLD . EBD, INFT, PRES, TRAN, ASTEC, INTEC, 

MILD, DEAF 

D - SEVR, BLD . EBD, INFT, PRES, TRAN, ASTEC, INTEC, 

MILD 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 



|1 



May, 1996 
111.96 



TEXAS - 

McLennan Community College 

Program in Mental Health 

1400 College Drive 

Waco.TX 76708 

Phone 817-756-6551; Fax 817-756-0934 

Head of department/program 

JoAnn Jumper 

CP - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, B_LD, 

INFT. PRES, SEC, TRAN 

AS - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT. ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, B_LJ), 

INFT, PRES, SEC, TRAN 

Stephen F. Austin State University 

Counseling and Special Education Program 

Box 13019 SFA Station 

Nacogdoches, TX 75962 

Phone 409-568-2906; Fax 409-568-1342 

Electronic Mail: InternetfJephsonmb@titan.sfasu.edu 

Head of department/program 

Melanie Jephson 

UG - GSPED, DEAF, SPCH, ELD, DFTNT, ELEM, INFT 

G - GIFT, RHAB, COUN, PSYCH, SLPTH, DIAG, INFT, PRES 

Accreditation 

STATE 

Texas Tech University 

Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education 

Box 41071 

Lubbock, TX 79409-1071 

Phone 806-742-2320; Fax 806-742-2179 

Head of department/program 

Alan Koenig 

UG -BLD, DEAF, SEVR, MR, GIFT, DIAG, DBL, GSPED 

D - B_LD, DEAF, SEVR, MR, GIFT, DIAG, DBL, GSPED 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE 

Texas Woman's University 

Department of Kinesiology 

Box 23717, TWU Station 

Denton, TX 76204 

Phone 817-898-2575; Fax 817-898-2581 

Head of department/program 

Jean Pyfer 

G - ADPE, AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD 

D - ADPE AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD 

Accreditation 

STATE 



UTAH •- 

University of Utah 

Department of Special Education 

221 Milton Bennion Hall 

Salt Lake City, UT 84112 

Phone 801-581-8122; Fax 801-581-5223 

Electronic Mail: Internet erichins@gse.utah.edu 

Head of department/program 

John McDonnell 

G - MILD, MODSEV, SEVR, GIFT, DEAF, B_LD, PRES 

D - LD, EBD, GIFT, MR, DEAF, BLD . PRES 

Accreditation 

STATE 

VERMONT ■- 

Casdeton State College 

Department of Education 

Woodruff Hall 

Castleton, VT 05735 

Phone 802-468-561 1 ; Fax 802-468-5237 

Head of department/program 

Judith M. Meloy 

G - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GUT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD 

Accreditation 

STATE 

WISCONSIN - 

University of Wisconsin- Whitewater 

Department of Special Education 

Whitewater, WI 53190 

Phone 414-472-1 106; Fax 414-472-5716 

Electronic Mail: Internet reidb@www.vax.www.edu 

Head of department/program 

Robin Warden 

UG - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GUT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD . 

CONS, DIAG, MCULT, INFT, PRES, RES, SEC, TED, VOC 

G - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GIFT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD . 

CONS, DIAG, ELEM, MCULT, INFT, PRES, RESEA, RES, 

SEC, TED, TRAN, VOC 

Accreditation 

CEC-NCATE; STATE 

Waukesha County Technical College 

Family and Community Services 

800 Main Street 

Pewaukee, WI 53072 

Phone 4 1 4-69 1 -5428 ; Fax 4 1 4-69 1-5172 

Head of department/program 

Mary Iverson 

AS - AUT, DBL, EBD, GSPED, GUT, DEAF, LD, MR, MILD, 

MODSEV, MULT, ORTHO, HLTH, SEVR, SPCH, TBI, BLD . 

CONS, CORR, CURRIN, DIAG, ELEM, MCULT, SEC, TED, 

TRAN, VOC 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 



May, 1996 
111.96 



Key to abbreviations used on this list: 



Level of Program Abbreviations 

Advanced graduate program not leading to a degree — A 

Program leading to and associate degree - AS 

Program leading to certification for paraprofessionals -- CP 

Program leading to a doctoral degree - D 

Post-baccalaureate or Master's Degree Program -- G 

Undergraduate or Bachelor's Degree Program -- UG 

Program and Preparati on Abbreviations 

Disability Descriptors 

Autism - AUT 

Deaf-Blindness -- DBL 

Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders - EBD 

Generic Special Education -- GSPED 

Gifted/Talented Individuals -- GIFT 

Hearing Impairments/Deafness — DEAF 

Learning Disabilities -- LD 

Mental Retardation — MR 

Mild Disabilities - MILD 

Moderate/Severe Disabilities ~ MODSEV 

Multiple Disabilities - MULT 

Orthopedic Impairments - ORTHO 

Other Health Impairments - HLTH 

Severe Disabilities — SEVR 

Speech/Language Impairment — SPCH 

Traumatic Brain Injury - TBI 

Visual Impairments/Blindness - BLD 

Related Services Descriptors 
Adapted Physical Education — ADPE 
Art Therapist - ART 



Audiologist -- AUD 
Dance Therapist - DNCE 
Interpreter for the Deaf ~ DFTNT 
Music Therapist - MSIC 
Occupational Therapist - OT 
Physical Therapist - PT 
Rehabilitation Counselor -- RHAB 
School Counselor - COUN 
School Nurse - NRS 
School Psychologist - PSYCH 
School Social Worker -- SOCW 
Speech-Language Pathologist - SLPTH 
Therapeutic Recreation - TREC 

Other Descriptors 
Administration - ADMIN 
Bilingual Education -- BILING 
Consulting/Collaboration -- CONS 
Correctional Special Education ~ CORR 
Curriculum and Instruction — CURRIN 
Diagnostician -- DLAG 
Elementary Special Education ~ ELEM 
Multicultural Concerns -- MCULT 
Infant/Toddler Intervention - INFT 
Preschool Intervention - PRES 
Resource Teacher - RES 
Secondary Special Education — SEC 
Technology, Assistive - ASTEC 
Technology, Computer - COTEC 
Transition - TRAN 
Vocational Special Education -- VOC 



Data in this fact sheet were provided by Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs) responding to Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 
surveys, National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education (NCPSE) surveys and members of professional associations 
representing the related services. NCPSE maintains an electronic database of these data which is updated as new information becomes 
available. NCPSE makes no claim that this is a complete or comprehensive list. 



This fact sheet is made possible through Cooperative Agreement # H030E30002 between 
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs and The Council 
for Exceptional ChBdren. The contents of the publication do not necessarily reflect the views 
or policies of the Department of Education. This information is in the public domain unless 
otherwise indicated. Readers are encouraged to copy and share it, but please credit the 
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. 



National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education 

1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589 

800-641-7824 (Toll Free); 703-264-9480 (TTY); 703-264-9476 (Voice); 

703-620-2521 (Fax); ncpse@cec.sped.org (E-mail) 

8 



May, 1996 
111.96 



Teacher Educators and the Future 
of Personnel Preparation Programs 
for Serving Students 
with Visual Impairments 



R.K. Silberman, A.L. Corn, V.M. Sowell 



Abstract: This article reports the results of a survey of undergraduate and graduate 
personnel preparation programs for teachers, orientation and mobility instructors, 
and rehabilitation teachers of persons with visual impairments and of doctoral pro- 
grams that prepare individuals for leadership positions. 



1 he issues surrounding the preparation 
of personnel for children, youths, and 
adults with visual impairments are com- 
plex. Child counts, the number of per- 
sonnel certified each year, the number of 
university programs distributed throughout 
the country that prepare personnel, and of 
funding these programs all contribute to 
the availability of certified direct-service 
personnel when a child or adult experi- 
ences a visual impairment. In the early 
1980s, Tuttle and Heinze (1986) reported 
that teachers of children and youths with 
visual impairments were scarce. During 
the mid-1980s, the shortage of these 
teachers increased. In 1991, the most 
recent year in which data were collected, 
only 186 students enrolled in university 
programs to become orientation and 
mobility instructors (Wiener & Joffee, 
1993), and in the 1993-94 academic year, 
according to data from the federal gov- 
ernment, only 176 teachers of children 
and youths with visual impairments 
received certification (V. Hart, project 
officer, Office of Special Education 



Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 
personal communication, October,- 1994). 
To date, data have not been collected to 
ascertain the number of rehabilitation 
teachers needed to serve the increasing 
number of adults with visual impair- 
ments. Although the number of teachers 
needed for any group of children with 
special education needs is difficult to 
determine, many children and youths with 
visual impairments are either inade- 
quately served or not served at all (Corn, 
Hatlen, Huebner, Ryan, & Siller, 1995). 

Unfortunately, the reporting problems 
that were described in the 1989 report 
(Silberman, Corn, & Sowell, 1989) still 
exist. Students with visual impairments are 
often not identified in official counts 
because of wide variations among data sys- 
tems with regard to types of data that are 
collected and because of state regulations 
that require students to be listed by their 
assumed primary disability (frequently 
mental retardation). Inaccuracies in counts 
are also evident in the 16th Annual report to 
Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 
1994, p. 25), which states that 



©1996 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment &. Blindness, Mar-Apr 1996 1 1 5 



state data systems are not adequate to 
accurately project estimates of per- 
sonnel demand, nor are systems in 
place to obtain information in per- 
sonnel supply on a State-by-State 
basis. A recent pilot test of the data 
collection format revealed that col- 
lecting the required data was quite 
burdensome to States and school dis- 
tricts and that many States could not 
provide all of the requisite data. Data 
that are particularly problematic for 
the States to report are those related to 
staff retention and attrition and to the 
number of unfilled, funded positions at 
the local level. OSEP plans to continue 
working with constituent groups to 
identify important issues and develop 
strategies for obtaining accurate data 
on personnel supply and demand in 
special education. 

The National Agenda for the Education 
of Children and Youths with Visual 
Impairments, Including Those with Multiple 
Disabilities (Corn et al., 1995) lists eight 
goal statements. It highlights priorities in 
the education of visually impaired children 
and was established through a likelihood- 
impact analysis involving over 500 pro- 
fessionals, parents, and persons with 
visual impairments. One of the goals is, 
"Universities, with a minimum of one full- 
time faculty member in the area of visual 
impairment, will prepare a sufficient 
number of educators of students with visual 
impairments to meet personnel needs 
throughout the country," a response to the 
need for a greater number of direct-service 
personnel for children and youths. 

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, 
well-established university programs in 
visual, impairments reduced the number 



of tenure-track faculty or were considered 
at risk of closing, and this situation con- 
tinues. For example, in 1992, the Uni- 
versity of Texas at Austin employed two 
tenure-track faculty in the education of 
children and youths with visual impair- 
ments and one non-tenure-track faculty in 
the program to prepare O&M instructors. 
In 1995, no tenure-track faculty remained. 
An insufficient supply of teacher educa- 
tors could soon have an impact on the 
number of persons available for direct 
service to individuals with disabilities 
and their families (Pierce, Smith, & 
Clarke, 1992). The dwindling number of 
university-based personnel preparation 
programs directly affects the availability 
of certified teachers, O&M instructors, 
and rehabilitation teachers. Furthermore, 
the number of graduate-level personnel 
preparation programs that prepare leader- 
ship personnel influences the number of 
faculty available for employment in uni- 
versity programs. 

This article reports on the 1994-95 
follow-up of the Silberman et al. (1989) 
study of university programs that prepare 
teachers of children and youths with 
visual impairments and those that prepare 
O&M instructors. In the follow-up study, 
we added university programs that pre- 
pare rehabilitation teachers to its original 
population. The data in this study refer to 
those types of undergraduate and grad- 
uate personnel preparation programs spe- 
cific to the educational and rehabilitation 
needs of persons with visual impairments 
and to the doctoral programs that prepare 
individuals for leadership positions, 
including future university faculty in per- 
sonnel preparation. As a result of this 
study, a profile of the programs and fac- 
ulty that are responsible for training a suf- 



1 1 6 Journal of Visual Impairment 4 Blindness, Mar-Apr 19% ©1996 AFB, All Rights Reserved 



ficient number of professionals needed to 
provide direct services is now available to 
the field. With this information, federal, 
state, and university administrators may 
be better able to plan for personnel needs 
into the next century. 

Method 

In the fall of 1994, the authors sent 
survey questionnaires to 34 preparation 
programs for teachers of children and 
youths with visual impairment, O&M 
instructors, and rehabilitation teachers that 
are listed in the AFB Directory of Services 
(American Foundation for the Blind, 1993), 
as well as to programs that the authors 
knew of that were not listed in the directory. 
Thirty-two programs responded to the 
deadline. (This number represents 69 of the 
71 full-time faculty members in the field.) 
The coordinator of each program was asked 
to distribute the questionnaires to all full- 
time faculty whose primary responsibility 
was in one or more of the three programs 
under consideration. Although many pro- 
grams function with part-time and adjunct 
personnel, we determined that only full- 
time faculty (at any academic rank, from 
non-tenure-track instructors to tenured full 
professors) represent stability and commit- 
ment to an established program. 

The respondents returned the question- 
naires by mail or fax. The data were ana- 
lyzed at Hunter College of the City 
University of New York (CUNY). 

Results 

Demographic Data 

Sixty-nine full-time faculty members 
from 32 universities in 20 states responded 
to the survey (a response rate of 99%). An 
additional questionnaire was returned after 



the data were analyzed and hence was not 
included. Of the respondents, 42 (60.9%) 
were women and 27 (39.1%) were men. All 
but six were Caucasian (91.3%), 2 (2.9%) 
were African American, and 4 (5.8%) were 
Asian American. Four respondents (5.8%) 
had visual impairments. Thirty-four respon- 
dents were aged 40-49, 20 (29.0%) were 
aged 50-59, 2 (2.9%) were aged 60 and 
over, and 1 (1.4%) was under 30. 

It was not possible to determine the 
number of faculty in each type of pro- 
gram for two reasons. First, faculty are 
often assigned to teach courses that apply 
to more than one program. For example, a 
faculty member in a college with both a 
teacher education program and a program 
to prepare O&M instructors may teach a 
course on low vision that students in both 
programs are required to take. Second, 
several faculty members indicated they 
had responsibilities in more than one pro- 
gram. Therefore, one cannot assume that 
the 69 respondents are equally distributed 
among the three types of programs. 

An open-ended question asked for what 
percentage of time the respondents had 
responsibilities in each area. With regard 
to the field of visual impairments, only 28 
(41%) of the respondents spent their 
entire time in one specialization area: 17 
(24.6%) in preparing teachers of children 
and youths, 9 (13.0%) in preparing O&M 
instructors, and 3 (4.3%) in preparing 
rehabilitation teachers. Furthermore, 14 
respondents spent 50 percent or more of 
their time in disability areas other than 
visual impairments. 

For the 52 respondents (75.4%) who 
spent a proportion of their time preparing 
teachers of children and youth with visual 
impairments, the sum of the percentages of 
time they spent was equivalent to 31.6 



©19% AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, Mar-Apr 1996 1 1 7 



full-time faculty. In addition to the 17 
(24.6%) mentioned earlier who spent 100 
percent of their time in this area, 35 spent 
various proportions of time: 5 (9.6%) 
spent 76-99 percent of their time, 5 (9.6%) 
spent 51-75 percent, 9 (17.3%) spent 
26-50 percent, and 16 (30.7%) spent 25 
percent or less of their time. 

Of the 32 respondents who spent a per- 
centage of their time preparing O&M 
instructors, the sum of the percentages of 
time they spent was equal to 19.2 full-time 
faculty. In addition to the 9 (13.0%) men- 
tioned earlier who spent 100 percent of 
their time in this area, 23 spent various 
proportions of time; 7 (21.9%) spent 
51-75 percent of their time; 7 (21.9%) 
spent 26-50 percent; and 9 (28.1%) spent 
25 percent or less of their time. 

Finally, of the 2 1 respondents who spent 
a proportion of their time preparing reha- 
bilitation teachers, the sum of the percent- 
ages of time they spent was equivalent to 8 
full-time faculty members. As was men- 
tioned before, only 3 percent spent 100 
percent of their time in this area; in addi- 
tion, 2 (9.5%) of the remaining 18 spent 
51-92 percent of their time, 3 (14.3%) 
spent 25-50 percent, and 13 (61.9%) spent 
less than 25 percent of their time. In sum- 
mary, although 69 faculty members 
responded to the survey as full-time uni- 
versity employees in this field, the per- 
centage of time they are actually allocated 
for preparing personnel to work in the 
field of visual impairments is equivalent to 
only 58.8 full-time faculty members. 

Rank, status, vacancies, and salaries 

The responses to the questions on acad- 
emic rank and status revealed that 18 
(26.1%) respondents were full professors, 
22 (31.9%) were associate professors, and 



19 (27.5%) were assistant professors. An 
additional 6 (8.7%) were lecturers or 
instructors, and 4 (5.8%) checked "other," 
a category that included postdoctoral 
fellow, grant project coordinator, and 
practicum coordinator. 

Further analysis of rank in relation to 
gender revealed that there were.; an equal 
number of males and females at both the 
associate professor and full professor ranks 
but that 15 of the 19 respondents (79.0%) of 
the assistant professor rank and 4 of the 6 
respondents (66.7%) at the instructor-lec- 
turer ranks were female. Thus, at the junior 
academic ranks, a substantial proportion of 
the faculty are female. 

Of the 69 respondents, 39 (56.5%) had 
tenure at the time of the survey. Of the 
31 (44.9%) who did not have tenure, 10 
(14.5% of the total respondents) were on a 
tenure track. Thus, 20 respondents (29.0%), 
were not tenured or on a tenure track, 
which means that nearly one-third of the 
full-time university faculty do not have 
tenure or tenure-track positions. 

Fifty-nine (85.5%) of the 69 respon- 
dents stated that they planned to remain in 
personnel preparation for at least the next 
five years. Only 5 (7.2%) of the faculty 
planned to retire or leave the field within 
five years, and another 5 (7.2%) said they 
did not know their plans at that time. 
Regardless of whether they had plans to 
leave their current position within the 
next five years, the respondents were 
asked if they would be replaced if they 
left. Twenty-one respondents (30.4%) 
indicated they would definitely be 
replaced, and 5 (7.2%) anticipated that 
they would not. Of particular concern is 
that the remaining 43 respondents 
(62.3%) stated they did not know if they 
would be replaced. 



1 1 8 Journal of Vtsual Impairment & Blindness. Mar-Apr 1996 ©1996 AFB. All Rights Reserved 



At the time of the data analysis in late 
spring 1995, only two universities were 
each in the process of hiring one full-time 
faculty member in visual impairments for 
the 1995-96 academic year to replace fac- 
ulty who had resigned. One position was in 
O&M, and the other positions required 
shared responsibilities in O&M and in edu- 
cation of children and youths. To date, no 
persons who received a doctoral degree in 
1995 had applied for either position. 

A broad range of salaries were reported 
for the academic year 1994-95. The majority 
of the respondents (50, or 72.5%) earned 
$30,000-$49,999: 25 respondents (36.25%) 
earned $30,00O-$39,999, and 25 (36.25%) 
earned $40,000-$49,999. In addition, 5 
respondents (7.2%) earned below $30,000 (2 
of them earning below $20,000), 5 (7.2%) 
earned $50,0OO-$59,999, 6 (8.7%) earned 
S60,00O-$69,999, and 3 (4.3%) earned more 
than $70,000. 

With regard to the sources of their 
salaries, 44 (63.8%) of the respondents 
reported that their salaries came only from 
hard-money sources, whereas 18 (26.1%) 
reported that their salaries were totally 
funded by grants or other sources and 7 
(10.1%) reported that at least a portion of 
their salaries were funded by soft-money 
sources. Therefore, the salaries of 36.3 per- 
cent of the full-time faculty are partially or 
entirely funded by grants. 

Further analysis of the data revealed the 
sources of the salaries of the tenured, 
tenure-track, and nontenured faculty. Of 
the 40 tenured respondents, 34 (85.0%) 
were paid entirely from hard-money 
sources, 3 (7.5%) were paid from a mix- 
ture of hard- and soft-money sources, and 
3 (7.5%) were paid totally form soft- 
money sources. Of the 10 respondents in 
tenure-track positions, 9 (90.0%) were 



paid from hard-money sources and 1 
(10.0%) was paid from a mixture of hard- 
and soft-money sources. Of the 20 respon- 
dents who were not on a tenure track, 3 
(15.0%) were paid solely from hard- 
money sources, 3 (15.0%) were paid from 
a mixture of hard- and soft-money sources, 
and 14 (70.0%) were paid entirely from 
soft-money sources. 

External funding sources 

With regard to external sources of 
funding, in 1994-95, more than half (18, 
or 54.5%) the university programs 
received full or partial support (in the 
form of grants) from the U.S. Department 
of Education, Office of Special Education 
Programs, and 10 (30.3%) obtained such 
support from the department's Re- 
habilitation Services Administration. In 
addition, 4 universities (12.1%) were 
awarded training grants from their states, 
and 5 (15.2%) received grants from other 
sources, such as private foundations. 

Types of programs 

Of the programs in the 32 universities 
and colleges surveyed in 1994-95, 27 
were at public institutions and 5 were at 
private schools (four colleges of education 
and one college of optometry). As was 
mentioned earlier, these 32 universities 
were in only 20 states. 

Table 1 summarizes the number and 
types of programs identified in the survey, 
categorized by various geographical 
regions of the country established for the 
deaf-blind initiatives. As the table indi- 
cates, three regions (the Northeast, 
Northwest, and Southwest) each have only 
three universities with programs to prepare 
personnel for direct service to children and 
youths with visual impairments. In one 



©I996AFB. All R,gh.s Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, Mar-Apr 1996 I 



19 



Table 1 










Distribution of faculty and programs 


by region. 










Number 




Type of program 




Institution by region 


Education of 




Rehabilitation 


of 


respondents 


children and youth 


s O&M 


teaching 


Northeast region 










Boston College 


1 


M 








Fitqhburg State College 


1 


U 


— 





University of Massachusetts, Boston 


1 


— 


CM 


CM 


Midatlantic region 










Dominican College 


1 


u, c 





U 


Hunter College, CUNY 


1 


M 





M 


Kutztown State University 


1 


U 







Pennsylvania College of Optometry" 


4 


CM 


C, M 


C, M 


Teacher's College, Columbia University 


1 


CM, D 








University of Pittsburgh 


1 


CM, D 


CM, D 


— 


Southeast region 


- 








Florida State University 


3 


U, C, M, D 


U, C, M, D 


U, C, M, D 


Georgia State University 


1 


C, M 








Peabody College, Vanderbilt University* 


** 2 


U, M, D 


M, D 


M, D 


University of Louisville 


1 


U, CM, D 


— 





University of New Orleans 


1 


C, M, D 








University of South Carolina *' 


1 


C, M 


— 


M 


Midwest region 










Eastern Michigan University 


1 


U, C, M 








Illinois State University 


1 


U, C, M, D 








Michigan State University 


3 


C, M 


C, M 





Ohio State University 


1 


C, M 








Northern Illinois University 


4 


U, M 





_ 


University of Minnesota 


1 


C, M, D 





_ 


Western Michigan University 


8 


U 


C, M 


M 


SoulhCentral region 










Stephen Austin State University 


3 


U, C 


U, C 





Texas Tech University 


4 


C, M, D 


M, D 





University of Arkansas, Little Rock 


5 


C, M 


C, M 


C, M' 


University of Texas at Austin 


1 


C M, D 


M, D 


— 


Southwest region 










California State University, Los Angeles 


3 


C,M,D 


M,D 


U 


San Francisco State University'** 


2 


C,M,D 


C.M.D 


C,M,D 


University of Arizona, Tucson 


3 


M,D 


M,D 


— 


Northwest region 










Portland State University 


2 


CM 


M 


, 


University of North Dakota 


1 


CM 


— 





University of Northern Colorado **** 


5 


C,M,D 


C.M.D 


M 



U = undergraduate program, C = certification program, M = master's degree program, and D = doctoral program. 
Unfilled vacancy as of July 1995. 

One faculty member retired or resigned; was not replaced for 1994-95. 
Vacancy filled as of July 1995. 



1 20 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, Mar-Apr 1996 ©1996 AFB, All Rights Reserved 



■ 
1 

■ 

■ 
■ 

i 
p 
■ 
1 
1 
1 

B 



1 



region (South-central) there are four uni- 
versities, in two regions (Midatlantic and 
Southeast) there are six universities each, 
and in one region (Midwest) there are seven 
universities. However, it should be noted 
that the number of universities in a region 
does not accurately reflect students' access 
to the three types of programs and, more 
significantly, there are wide geographic dis- 
tances among the universities, even in the 
same state. In Texas, for example, although 
there are three universities with O&M pro- 
grams, Texas Tech University is 400 miles 
from the University of Texas at Austin and 
about 700 miles from Stephen F. Austin 
University in Nagodoches. 

Table 1 presents data on the four levels 
of personnel preparation programs (under- 
graduate, certification, master's degree, 
and doctorate) offered by the universities. 
As the table shows, many universities had 
programs at more than one level of 
instruction; for example, Florida State 
University offered all four levels in all 
three areas, San Francisco State University 
offered three levels (certification, master's 
degree, and doctorate) in all three areas, 
and Pennsylvania College of Optometry 
offered two levels (certification and 
master's degree) at all three levels. 

Among the undergraduate programs, 12 
prepared teachers of children and youths 
with visual impairments, 2 prepared O&M 
instructors, and 3 prepared rehabilitation 
teachers. With regard to certification pro- 
grams (nondegree programs on the post- 
bachelor's level), those for education of 
children and youths with visual impair- 
ments met the states' requirements for cer- 
tification, but those in O&M and rehabili- 
tation teaching generally met the require- 
ments of the Association for Education 
and Rehabilitation of the Blind and 



Visually Impaired for national certifica- 
tion. As Table 1 indicates, there were 23 
programs that certify teachers of children 
and youths with visual impairments, 10 
that certify O&M instructors, and 5 that 
certify rehabilitation teachers. 

Among the schools that offer master's 
degree programs, 26 universities offered 
programs in education of children and 
youths with visual impairment; 15, in 
O&M; and 10, in rehabilitation teaching. 
Finally, 14 universities offered doctoral 
programs in special education with an 
emphasis in children and youths with 
visual impairments, 9 offered programs 
with an emphasis in O&M, and 3 offered 
programs with an emphasis in rehabilita- 
tion teaching. 

Implications 

An earlier study of personnel prepara- 
tion programs (Silberman et al., 1989) pre- 
dicted that "the future of programs to train 
personnel to serve visually handicapped 
children and youths is guarded" (p. 154). 
The data from the 1994-95 study indicate 
that the future of these programs in this 
field continues to be threatened. Cutbacks 
in states' basic support to universities and 
conflicts between human service needs 
and balanced budget initiatives may result 
in fewer services to low-incidence popula- 
tions, such as persons who are visually 
impaired, and fewer personnel to provide 
such services. 

Because 22 of the 69 university faculty 
who were surveyed are over age 50 and 43 
of the 69 did not know whether their posi- 
tions would be retained if they resign and 
another 5 said they would definitely not be 
replaced, the future of a significant 
number of programs will be in question 



©1996 AFB. All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment* Blindness, Mar-Apr 19% 121 



when these faculty retire or otherwise 
resign. Moreover, since 20 of the 69 fac- 
ulty are not in tenure-track positions, they 
could be laid off for financial reasons, 
especially given the threats to further cut- 
backs in federal funds for educational pro- 
grams, much of which goes to the salaries 
of non-tenure-track faculty who provide 
class instruction. The loss of these faculty 
would severely constrict personnel prepa- 
ration programs in the field. 

The fact that only 20 of the 50 states 
have personnel preparation programs in 
visual impairment reflects the difficulties 
that interested persons encounter in 
obtaining training in the field. Constraints 
imposed by the limited number of schools 
and the vast geographic distances among 
schools make it difficult or impossible for 
students to enroll. 

The recruitment of faculty continues to 
be a serious issue. The lack of stability in 
the current and future university job 
market, higher salaries in administrative 
positions, and the absence of financial 
support for doctoral study have led to a 
dearth of potential leadership personnel. 
Furthermore, the median salary range at 
the assistant professor level ($30,000- 
$40,000) is less than that for personnel in 
direct services, who do not incur the 
added expense and disruption of their 
lives caused by doctoral study. The fact 
that there has been only a small increase 
in the number of faculty from underrepre- 
sented populations since 1989 (from none 
to six) is a major cause for concern 
because many infants with visual impair- 
ments are from ethnic minority popula- 
tions, and hence, a greater number of 
ethnic minority students will require ser- 
vices in the field of visual impairments 
within the next 10 years. 



Recommendations 

University programs that prepare per- 
sonnel for direct services to persons with 
visual impairments must address issues 
related to the provision of high-quality ser- 
vices and the optimum use of available 
resources. Accordingly, we make the fol- 
lowing recommendations that are based on 
the results of this study. 

• University personnel should make every 
effort to stress the importance of con- 
tinued institutional support for the mis- 
sions and personnel of these programs. 
Furthermore, state education and rehabil- 
itation departments must take the lead in 
providing financial support to existing 
programs. They should also assist Local 
Education Agencies (LEAs) in providing 
incentives (such as stipends, release 
time, and job security) to teachers in 
related fields for obtaining certification 
in visual impairment. 
Integral to this approach is the need for 
reciprocal agreements among the states 
to accept the credentials of all accred- 
ited programs, so that graduates can be 
certified to teach in any state. More- 
over, it is imperative for the federal 
government to recognize the long-term 
expertise and commitment of well- 
established university programs and 
thus to involve experienced faculty in 
developing creative and innovative 
methods of preparing a sufficient 
number of direct services personnel. Of 
particular concern to those who are 
responsible for these programs is the 
possibility that new programs of ques- 
tionable quality will proliferate as a 
result of federal support that is based on 
geographic needs. 



122 Journal of Visual Impaimenl & Blindness, Mar-Apr 1996 ©1996 AFB. All Rights Reserved 



• Universities must recognize the neces- 
sity of supporting this low-incidence 
field by appointing faculty members to 
tenure-track positions with sufficient 
compensation. 

• Efforts to address the shortage of per- 
sonnel preparation faculty in this field 
should include the development by 
existing programs of distance-learning 
(outreach) courses, interactive video 
systems, mentor teachers, and other 
specific curricular models. However, 
we question the viability of short-term 
solutions to certification requirements 
through summers-only programs and 
alternative training in nonuniversity 
programs. 

• Because the foregoing programs require 
the allocation of much more time and 
resources by individual faculty mem- 
bers than are required in traditional per- 
sonnel preparation programs, the 
demands on faculty should be recog- 
nized by university reviews of faculty 
for tenure promotion. 

Faculty in personnel preparation pro- 
grams should encourage colleagues in 
related fields to enter master's and doc- 
toral programs in special education, to 
expand the cadre of personnel who can 
assume positions in the universities in 
both education and rehabilitation. 
Furthermore, individuals with special- 
ized undergraduate or graduate prepara- 
tion in education or rehabilitation of 
persons with visual impairment who 
obtain doctoral degrees in related fields 
should be recruited to leadership posi- 
tions in the field. 

Leaders should encourage successful ser- 
vice providers in the field to develop the 



necessary skills and knowledge to assume 
future leadership positions. 

Conclusion 

The mandate of federal legislation and 
education and rehabilitation require the 
delivery of appropriate, high-quality spe- 
cialized services to children, youths, and 
adults with visual impairments. These 
mandates can be fulfilled only if teachers 
become certified by acquiring the neces- 
sary specialized skills in high-quality 
accredited university programs. Collabor- 
ation among LEAs, state departments of 
education and rehabilitation, and the fed-, 
eral government is essential to ensure that 
such high-cost, low-enrollment categor- 
ical university programs in the field of 
visual impairments can continue to train 
personnel to meet the unique needs of this 
low-incidence population. It is imperative 
that all those who affect the lives of indi- 
viduals with visual impairments are com- 
mitted advocates for the civil rights of 
this population; paramount to this effort is 
the assurance that existing high-quality 
university programs will remain viable. 

References 

American Foundation for the Blind. (1993) 
AFB directory of services for blind and 
visually impaired persons in the United 
States and Canada (24th ed.). New York- 
Author. 

Corn, A.L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K.M., Ryan. 
F-, & Siller, M.A. (1995). The national 
agenda for the education of children and 
youths with visual impairments, including 
those with multiple disabilities. New York- 
AFB Press. 

Pierce, T.B., Smith, D.D. & Clarke, J (1992) 
Spec.al education leadership: Supply and 
demand revisited. Teacher Education and 
Special Education, 15 175-182 

Silberman, R.K., Corn, A., & Sowell, V.M. 
1 1989). A profile of teacher education and the 



©1996 AFB. AN R, ghts Reserved ZZ^Zt L„ M \ ~ ~ , 9% \ £ 



future of their personnel preparation pro- 
grams for serving visually handicapped chil- 
dren and youth. Journal of Visual Impairment 
& Blindness, 83, 150-155. 

Tuttle, D. & Heinze, T. (1986). Critical issues 
in personnel: Recruitment, retention, and 
advancement. Paper presented at the 
•International Conference of the Association 
for the Education and Rehabilitation of the 
Blind and Visually Impaired, Chicago. 

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). 
Sixteenth annual report to Congress on the 
implementation of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author. 

Wiener, W. & Joffee, E. (1993). The orienta- 



tion and mobility personnel shortage and 
university training programs. RE.view 25 
67-75. 



Rosanne K. Silberman, Ed.D., professor, Department 
of Special Education, Hunter College, City University 
of New York. 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021; 
(E-mail: rsilberm@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu.): Anne L 
Corn, Ed.D., professor, Department of Special 
Education, Box 328, George Peabody College for 
Teachers, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203 
(E-mail: cornal@cntvax.vanderbilt.edu.); Virginia 
M. Sowell, Ph.D., associate provost and professor. 
Department of Special Education. Texas Tech 
University, Box 4609, Lubbock, TX 79409. 



1 24 Journal oj Visual Impairment & Blindness. Mar-Apr 1996 OI990 AFB, All Rights Reserved 



APPENDIX C 
Handouts from Presentations 



What We Know About Teacher Preparation Programs in 
Blindness and Visual Impairment 

prepared by 

Anne Corn (Vanderbilt University), 

Kay Ferrell (University of Northern Colorado), 

Susan Spungin (American Foundation for the Blind), and 

George Zimmerman (University of Pittsburgh) 

for the NASDSE Policy Forum, 
Training Educators to Work with Students who are Blind or Visually lmpa,red 

Washington, DC 
September 18-20, 1996 



Program Status 



Fimirp1 l Only 26 programs in 19 states across the country currently meet AER 
9 ] Division 1 7's standard of at least 1 .0 faculty FTE. 

. Sixteen (1 6) of these programs receive funding from the 
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). 

• Twelve (1 2) of these programs prepare graduates eligible for 
dual teacher/orientation and mobility (O&M) certification. 

. The total of 47 programs listed in the National Clearinghouse 
for Professions in Special Education list is a myth. 

In 1994 or y 17 faculty members were actually employed full-time in the 
teacher'education program in blindness and visual impairment. 

. ~-,e last new faculty position filled in a university program was 
r 1 995, after searching for four years for a qualified doctoral- 
evel applicant. 

• -ne last new tenure track position established in blindness 
^nd visual impairment occurred over 10 years ago. 

Since 1 92C programs have closed at the following universities: 

Bcsn=>n College (O&M only) 

Brcram Young University 

Fterourg State College 

Hurusr College (O&M only) 

Pe^oody College at Vanderbilt University (O&M only) 

Sacramento State University 

Ssr Diego State University 

sirs University of New York at Geneseo 

S ,-^j-use University 



9/19/96 

Revised 12/11/96 



Temple University 

The Johns Hopkins University 

University of Virginia 

University of Michigan 

University of South Carolina [but recruiting for next year]. 

Programs currently at risk include: 

University of Texas at Austin 

D'Youville College 

Teachers College, Columbia University 

Portland State University 

Peabody College at Vanderbilt University 

During this same time period, only the Pennsylvania College of 
Optometry has opened and continues to operate a teacher education 
program in blindness and visual impairment. 

Sixty-two percent (62%) of university faculty in teacher preparation, 
O&M, and rehabilitation teaching do not believe their positions will be 
maintained after they retire (Silberman, Corn, & Sowell, 1996). 



Numbers of Children with Visual Impairments 



Figure 2 



Figure 3 



The annual count of children with visual impairments served under IDEA 
for the 1 993-94 school year comprised only 46.5% of the Federal Quota 
Registration maintained by the American Printing House for the Blind 
(APH). 

• Although this undercount occurred in all states, the 
discrepancy is largest in states west of the Mississippi River. 

=> 33 states, mostly in the West and Southeast, are 
expected to experience increases in elementary and 
secondary school enrollments of 5% to 10% and 
more. 

• Federal quota registration requires legal blindness for 
eligibility, a more restrictive requirement than IDEA'S 
requirement for a visual impairment that affects the ability to 
learn. Yet the annual count of students with visual 
impairment served under IDEA has totaled less than the 
federal quota registration since 1977. 






Figure 4 J For years, the field has relied on the federal estimate of the population of 
children with visual impairments -- one-tenth of one percent of the 
resident school-age population -- first articulated by Jones and Collins 
(1966). Nelson and Dimitrova (1993) estimated that .2% (two-tenths of 



9/19/96 

Revised 12/11/96 



one percent) of children and youths under 18 years of age are severely 
visually impaired. This rate seems to be supported by Wenger, Kaye, 
and LaPlante (1996). Benson and Marano (1994), however, suggest the 
prevalence rate may be as high as 1%. 

• IDEA'S count may fail to account for over 80% of students 
with severe visual impairment. 

• Even APH's registry may fail to account for over 60% of 
students with severe visual impairment. 

• A Colorado study suggests that teachers and O&M specialists 
actually serve three times more students than are reported as 
visually impaired under IDEA (Ferrell & Suvak, 1996). These 
students are classified with a disability other than visual 
impairment. 



Program Productivity 



Figure 6 



Figure 7 



Pig ure 5 I In a survey conducted for Goal 3 of the National Agenda, the total 
number of students enrolled in university programs of various types in 

1995-96 was 960 students, 415 (43.2%) of whom completed the 

requirements and presumably entered the field. 

Student enrollments and teacher yields varied from state to state. States 
with the highest enrollments (> 50) were Arkansas, California, Florida, 
Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas. States that produced the 
greatest number of teachers (> 25) were California, Florida, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania, and Texas. 

• The 33 universities in 22 states responding to the survey 
produced 274 new teachers of students with visual 
impairments -- a mean of 8.3 per program, and a national 
mean of 5.5 per state. 

=> OSEP reported that 241 teachers of students with 
visual impairment were needed during school year 
1992-93 (OSEP, 1995). 

. => These numbers do not appear to have changed much 

Figure 8 | f rom tne Bowen and Klass (1993) survey, although the 

methods of data collection and definitions used do not 
necessarily make the surveys comparable. 

• Fifteen programs produced 94 new orientation and mobility 
specialists -- a mean of 6.3 per program, and a national mean 
of 1 .9 per state. 



9/19/96 

Revised 12/11/96 



Figure 9 



Figure 10 



• Thirteen programs produced 43 new dually-certified 
teachers/O&M specialists -- a mean of 3.3 per program, and a 
national mean of .9 per state. 

• Five programs produced only 1 new teacher of students with 
deafblindness -- a mean of .2 per program. 

In 1995-96, students enrolled in the blindness and visual impairment 
program at Vanderbilt University were taught by faculty for only 25% of 
their courses; their remaining coursework was covered by adjuncts. 

• Students at the University of Pittsburgh had the same 
experience. 

• Students at the University of Northern Colorado were taught 
by faculty for 100% of their courses, but only because there 
were six faculty (3 state-funded, 3 made possible by federal 
grants). Without grant support, UNC, too, would need to rely 
on adjuncts to teach all the courses required for Colorado 
licensure (47 credits required for Colorado licensure in Severe 
Needs: Vision; 63 credits for licensure in Severe Needs: 
Vision with endorsement in orientation and mobility. 

The cost of producing one student credit hour in the Division of Special 
Education at UNC is $174. 

• In-state tuition covers only 72.4% of this cost, although out-of- 
state tuition covers 286.2%. With UNC's recent designation 
as a Western Regional Graduate Program, however, almost 
all of its students will pay the in-state tuition rate. 

Tuition contributed only 18.4% of the mean revenues received at all 
public institutions in 1993-94, while the costs of instruction alone (not 
including other types of academic support, such as technology 
laboratories and libraries) accounted for 32.6% of public institutions' 
mean expenditures. 

Only 30.3% of parents who sent their children to residential school for 
students with visual impairments could reply with certainty that their 
home school district employed a teacher of students with visual 
impairment (Corn, Bina, & DePriest, 1995). Even less could respond 
that their home school district employed an O&M specialist. 



Student Costs 



Estimated annual budgets for UNC graduate students ranged in 1995-96 
from $8202 for state residents commuting to UNC, to $17,786 for out-of- 
state students living on campus. 



9/19/96 
Revised 12/11/96 



• 



The national mean student budget in 1992-93 ranged from 
$13,300 for full-time, 12-month masters students at public 
universities, to $26,300 for full-time, 12-month doctoral 
students at private universities. 

By the time they completed their degrees, masters graduates 
in 1 992-93 had borrowed a national mean of $1 1 ,870 in 
loans; doctoral graduates had borrowed a national mean of 
$21,189 in loans. 



References 



American Printing House for the Blind (APH). (1994). Distribution of federal 
quota based on the January 3, 1994 registration of eligible students. Louisville, KY: 
Department of Educational and Advisory Services, American Printing House for the 
Blind. 

Benson, V., & Marano, M. A. (1994). Current estimates from the National 
Health Interview Survey, 1992. Vital Health Statistics, 10 (189). 

Bowen, M. L, & Klass, P. H. (1993). Low-incidence special education teacher 
preparation: A supply and capacity pilot study. Teacher Education and Special 
Education, 16 , 248-256. 

Corn, A. L, Bina, M. J., & DePriest, L. B. (1995). The parent perspective on 
schools for students who are blind and visually impaired: A national study. Alexandria, 
VA: Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired. 

Ferrell, K. A., & Suvak, P. A. (1996). Educational outcomes for Colorado 
students with visual impairments: Final report. (Available from Division of Special 
Education, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639.) 

Jones, J. W., & Collins, A. P. (1966). Educational programs for visually 
handicapped children. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 

Nelson, K. A., & Dimitrova, G. (1993). Severe visual impairment in the United 
States and in each state, 1990. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80-85. 

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (1995). Seventeenth annual 
report to Congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education 
act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. 

Silberman, R. K., Corn, A. L., & Sowell, V. M. (1996). Teacher educators and 
the future of personnel preparation programs for serving students with visual 
impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90 , 115-124. 

9/19/96 

Revised 12/11/96 



Wenger B L , Kaye, H. S., & LaPlante, M. P. (1996). Disabilities statistics 
ohct rartNn 15: Disabilities among children. Washington, DC: US Department of 
Education National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 



9/19/96 
Revised 12/11/96 



■ 
■ 
■ 
I 
I 
■ 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
1 



Figure 1 



(D 




CO 

E 

03 
O 

a. 



en 




0) 

o 

TO 
(1) 



CO 

TO 

•o 

c 

-2 
to 

c£ 

LU 
< 

CO 

"CD 
CD 

E 



CO 
P TO 



CL CL 






o 

TO 
CD 

d 
TO 



o3 
O 

£'1 

E j2 

TO C 
™ CD 

CL w 



CO 

-*— < 

c 

CD 



-1 


CD 


o 


(• 1 


O 


_3 




i— 




■*— > 


n 


C/) 


(U 




4— 


1= 


c 


o 


+-< 


o 




b 

TO 


TO 


CD 


i_ 


TO 


u 


CD 


n 


TO 


O 


CD 


CD 



E 

TO 

i_ 

CB 
O 

CL > 



□ 



Figure 2 



J_l j 

■-I— 


Ol 


o! O: OJ 


en 


cr> 


cd ■ m 1 oi | m 


m 


m 


o 


CO 


o 


CO 


m 


m 


CO 


CO 


enjoj 


in 


r- 


m 


CD 


r~ 


in|r- 


m|r-|m| ^x ail oi 


r-l co loi oi 1- 


m 


m 


cn 


r- 


on 


CO 


in 


cn 


cn| o 


cn: v 


in 


tniN 


_ 






— 


CTJ 


! o 


CO 


o 


oi:mi t-io 


<D 


*- 




O 




in 


TT 


m 


o 


CO 


CM 


o 


|v. 


cn 


CO 


OJ 


CO 


col *" 


co|oj cd -c- 


T 


T 


r-loj 


r ® 


en 


fN 


US 


CO 


m 


CM 


T"| 


n 


CO 


"• 


io 


CO 




00jr- 




o 








o 


! I^r 


^ 


un 


ai 


cdIoj! r- 


CO 


V 




in 




o 


cn 


cn 




CD 


t- 


1— 


r- 


o~ 


m 


cn 


CO 


t-|TT 


ojiojlcilr^ 


m 


O- 


Hifl 


io m 


T~ 


cn 


T- 


r^ 


»— 


cn 


oi 


CJ) 


v 


ri\ 


cn 


CJ 


r^ 


v cn 




CO 








2 cLJ 


CO 


CM 


in 






V T-W 


OJ 


OJ 








T— 


CM 


OJ 




OJ 


r* 




c-> 






«" 


CM 




*"i [H 


OJ 


T" 


r " 


«- CM 


»~ 


t" 






■< — 


CM 






CM 




<~ 


T— 
















2! t>\m\ 






























































I 






























' 






































































1 | j 






1 | 








































'Iv7 ; cjnt 




























































< 1 












I 


































aT 
































































; 








1 1 






















1 
















ra 






































































1 1 
























1 
















to 




















































































































D. 


co 


w 






















































































































gi 


> 


o 








| 


































































i 














































C 


a. 


























































































































































































































































J? 









































































































































CO 


O 


o 


in 


CM 


Ol OJ 


CD 


m id 


m 


r^ 


o 


CM 


m 


CO 


CD 


r- 


cn 


CD 


,- 


a. 


O 


CD 


CD 


^r 


o 


□ 


CD 


OJ 


o 


vicn 


cn 


r- 


m 


CM 


T 


o- 


m 


CO 


o 


■^t 


Ol 


cn 


CO 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


Ol 


V 


o 


^ 


CO 


o 


in 












v" 




o 


o 




r- 


CD 


in co 


m 


ai 


cn 


in 


o- 




CO 


o 




T 


CD 


m 


■^T 


i^- 


CO 


cn 


OJ 


TT 


r- 


h" 


in 


T 


OJ 




m 


CO 




cn 


r- 


r^ 


OJ 


00 


cn 


r- 




■T 


OJ 


CO 


CO 


CO 


O 


v 




V 




m 


IV. IV. 




CO 












en 




in 


en 




cO 


h> 


Ol 


CD 


cn 


r- 




, ^- 


OJ 




o 


m 


in 


CD 


h- 




^T 


cn 


OJ 


CD 


''T 


m 


CD 


o 


CM 


■^T 


CO 


in 


o> 


m 


Ol 


h- 


o 


CO 


cn 










-H- 






^T 




on 


CO 




s 


cn 


CO 


O V 




CN 












en 










o 


CD 


'^T 


cn 


r^ 






OJ 


cn 




m 


m 




in 


h- 


r- 


O 


Ol 


m 


CM 


■<T 


CD 


OJ 


CO 


T 


OJ 


V 


r-> 


CM 


cn 


XT 


m 


CO 




cn 


ai 


co 


o 




Ol 


o 


CM 


m 


cn 


CO 






CD 


V 


V 


■""I*" 




V 








s< 


















CO 










m 










m 


















OJ 




















■T 






OJ 






m 












in 


















on 
































































































































CO 








& 




o 
c 
2 




























































































































■D 

re 




5 




























































































































E 




o<3 




























































































































VI 




c 
o 




























































































































Lit 




c 

a 






























































































































_, 






(N 


c 


oi m 


OJ 


O 


CD 


h- 


Ol 


cn 


^_ 


in 


o 


ID 


*- 


^T 


cn 


OJ 


i^- 


cn 


TT 


ao 


CO 


m 


Ol 


m 


T 


o 


Ol 


<T 


CM 


^ 


r- 


*T 


CO 


m 


CO 


m 


r- 


r^ 


CD 


o 


ai 


CO 


cn 


■^ 


CM 


*- 


CO 


o 


o 


m 


CD 


TIC) 


o 


r~ 










cn 






O 


CO 


i r- 


in 


O) 


n 


CO 


in 


m 


cn 


m 






o 


o 


OJ 


m 


CJ 


CO 


cn 


m 


CM 


CO 


CD 


m 




cn 


CO 


OJ 


O 


cn 


r- 


CO 


m 




CD 


CO 


m 


CM 


m 




CO 


CN 


CO 


Ol 


cn 


CO 


o 




CO 


CO 


CO 


>- 0) 




m 










en 






CO 


m i r- 


m 


cn 


cn 


urn m 


OJ 


"V 


CO 




CD 


r^ 


m 




m 


"T 


o 


m 


CD 


in 


CO 


OJ 


m 


CO 


ao 


T 


on 


c- 


m 


CO 


Ol 




CD 


n 


cn 


CO 


CD 


o 




^r 


o 


v 


CD 


CD 


cn 


cn 




CO 


co 


on 


CO 


CN 




CO 










en 






OJ 


I !cM 




CD 






CD 


m 








CD 


m 






OJ 


OJ 




CM 


OJ 


m 


OJ 




CM 










m 




Ol 


CO 




m 






CD 






CN 




OJ 


o 








CO CN 




CN 






CO 








jS 




I 






1 






































































































CO 








CM 


co 


















































































































T ~ 








i. 


o K 








































































































I 


















T3 


Ei- 


























































































































C3 


b 


v 
































































1 






































| 




1 












E 


«3 


it 










































































































i 












iu!§ 

oj 








1 
























































j 












































| 












\z 


1 








' 
















































I 


































1 1 


















1 


*- ! OlO co 


<D 


in 


CO 


T;0 


oi m 


CO 


o 


CO 


r- 


OJ 


in 


CD 


m 


m 


r*. 


cn 


C^i 


CO 


m 


r- 


f^ 


m 


m 


ojlr-jm|co 


OJ 


cn 


o- 


cnl cm 


cn 


V 


GO 


o 


TT 


m 


coir- 


CD 


o 


v 


OilOi r- 


CJ 


rv 


CO 




CD 








X 




m en 


CO 


h- 


cn 


CD 


Oil co 


oj -^r 


OJ 




O 


m 


in 


CD 


r- 




^r 


Ol 


OJ 


CO 


■<T 


m 


CD 


o 


CM 


^T 


coimlailm 


Ol 


h- 


o 


colon 










^r 




«- T 




on 


m 




c~ cnico 


O 


v 




CM 








ssj 


to 








c 


CD 


T 


Ol 


r- 






rg 


cn 




m 


m 




m 


r*- 


r- 


o 


oj]m 


CM 


TT 


CD 


OJ 


CO 


T 


OJ 


"T 


mi CM oi 


T 


m 


CO 


»-; on oni an o 




OJ 


o 


CN 


CO 


cn 


CO 






CO V 


V 


V 






V 








Ol 












CO 










m 










m 
















OJ 
















T 




CM 


1 <-'> 












m 


















cn 








a 


C 






































































| 


































CD 








T3 
aj ) 

15 


a 
U 
































































1 










j 






















| 




' 












E 




ofl 














1 














































! 






























i 
















VI 




CO 

ai 


























































































1 
















LU 


o 


















! 














































j 












I 






















1 














1 w 














1 








































i 








| 




1 










1 






' 


i 












3 






CD 


CO 




O 1 i- 


r-o- 


m! t-' r^.. co 


^_i 


,_ 


CD 


OJ 


miai 


CO 


in 


CO 


m 


o 


(D 


CO 


m 


cni cm 


r- 


cd. cn 


m| oil cdI (D 


i-i ojIco 


v 


cmI^t 




o 


m 


TT 


0) in 


o 


r- 


i cc; co! co 


CO! CM 


c- 




M» 


^ 


aj ■ 




Ol ^T 


! TT' T 


CD'O 


oprreoto 


v! 


OJ 


■*r 


CO 


ml co 


CD 


CD 


o- 


■^r m 


TTITT 


CO 


col coi on 


co; m 


NiU; m; V\m\ r-i *- 


V o <- 




CO 


m 


in 


Hill 


CO 


O 


IN OS 


coicn 












oisd 




n oi ! mi oj 


Ol! OJ 


co uo cn m 


I s - 


C4 


in 


r- 


in 


o 


OJ 


m 


o 


OlIO 


CD 


CD 


m 


cni aiico 


HO 


m OJ col r- T\ OJI -T 


n]id 


CO 




CO 


01 


CM 


eoloi 


CN 


o 


1 ai vl o> 


OICO 




cn 








a.: 5 




o 


Oj 1 I s - 1 CO 


*«r ; ao i cn ; oi i cn 1 in 


r*- 


CO 


o 




■^r 


CD 


m 


T 


h- co> m 


CM 


■*T 


o- 


col T TT 


oj|*-im)co t-' aij r-i ml oj 


ao 


m 


o- 




*T 


Ol 


CD 


(Dim 


o 


T 


| V »-!CN 


r-'iv. 




CO 




O 


o 


-tl"? 




\n 


ai| ' co|r- 


Ol 


CP 0)N r 


T 


Olj 


o 


in 


in 


<D 


1^. 




■^T 


OlIOJICD 


■^r 


m 


co 


O CM 


■^r 


cd iniailm oi'r-l oj eoici 










-^T 






t U- 


on 


CO 


,rv co: co 


Ol V 




CM 




dlo 


c.<2'in 

*>< £icn 

'in — !"~ 






r* ■ Oi(D 


T 


oi r*-; r- 




OJ 


Oil 


m 


m 




m 


o- 


ps 


O 


OJ 


m 


CN 


•^r 


cD 


oji co ^r 


OJ 


■Tim 


OJIOl 


^r i m ; co | t- j ai 


CO 


CO 


o 




OJ 


o 


CM 


m m 


CD 




Ice V 


V 


V.T- 




V 


















CO 


j 




m 










m 


















OJ 


1 








! 




T 


y~\ ;oji 

1 ! ! 




m 










r- V) 












*"i 




cjn 

CO 








IX 


v ill 


























































i 


i 

i 








| 
















J 








I 
















TO 


MjCfll 














[ 










































i 














j 


















! 
















01 


ciO 1 
























































i 


1 








i 




1 


















i 












re o!~ 


























































i 
























i 




















M 
Si" 














i 
i 


















































| 




i 


















1 : 




i 












-1 




l^isslssi s? 


o° 




2?|5? ^[s? 


=* 


5? 


^ 


ss|^ 


cV° 


<? 


o^ 


o o 


^ 


^1^ 


£|v= 


<?|ssjs?:ss 


$ 


5? 


^ ^!^i^ 


g? 


SPI£ 


o 5 


5? 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


£? 


5?!^ s?jg? 


5? iJ? 




3? 








c — 




1 r-i ail r*-l m 


OJ 


co ai i in: mi m 


in'in 


mlm! t- 


OJ 


r- 


cn r- 


cn 


cn 


m 


cmI co 


CO 


coih- 


m: -^r 


Ol CMI r-i CM 


T 


Ol 


m m : ©i coi o 


ojim 


T 


Ol 


Tl m 


in 


on 


CO 


m 


^r on cm 


CO V 




CD 








ai 


"l8 




o: m 


CD! O- 


r»- 


cn|*— im'Cn|0Jiin|O 


^r 


cojo 


OJ 


OJ 


00 


CO 


m 


m 


h- 


o 


T 


p- 


mio 


CMIOl 


OlO S|? 


^ 


coi y-\ ai ; oji an r^- 


T- O 


CO 


cn 


»-!CO 


CN 


c~ 


00 


OJ 


*-. OICO 


cnliv. 




V 








u 




CO t- 


(fl d N 


cilTT 


r^ i CD 1 o i co 1 f> 


T- 


in 


CO 


cn 


CO 


CM 


m 


r- 


1 


T 


o 


m 


CD 


h- 


CO 


CO IV 


VfcN co'] t- 


r- 


co 


mi *- ml r-- m 


m'i^ 


o 


OJ 


oilco 


r~ 


T- 


cn'I cb 


6 CON 


co V 




CD 








a. 




TT 


P3 


\ ^ 


OJ 


■q-lTT 

1 


T' CO|fO!CO 


in 


o- 


un 


OJ 


OJ 


m 


, ^- 


m 


CD 


CD 


m 


-^T 


■^r 


m 


m 


CO 


CO 


T 


co, m in 
| 1 


OJ 


OJ 


m 


m 


CM. CO 


i 


CO 


a 


T 


CO 


^T 


co 


T 


m 


v 




tt oj m 


CM 


V 




V 








W;X|?3! 




1 








{ \ 








































j 










i 
























i 
















(0 CLi 














] i 








































| 


















































D.l< 


o 






j ! 




















































1 






















































£1° 


CJ 






J 1 






















































1 






































' 


















Ol 




































































































1 












a.! 






to! ml cm! co 


,__ 


cn 


TTi TT.OJ 


cn 


r~ 


m 


m 


T 


Ol 


o 


OJ 


T 


m 


^ 


,_ 


,_ 


a> 


00 


Ol 


OJ 


T 


oi 


O 


colo *-'CO 


CD 


T-' 1- 


Vlcol V 


OJ 


OJ 


01 


CO 


T 


T^ 


on 


can 


CM 


CO 


OJ 


r-'r- 


n 


CN;*- 




CN 












coi Tl 1 o 


CO 


OJ 


ocDiai 


m 


OJ 






CD 


o- 


r- 


0) 


00 


O) 


CO 


CD 


Ol 


CO 


CO 




m 




CD 


CO 


oia> 


C0IV 


T 


tr> 




Ifih 


cn 


T 


OJ 




r- 


CO 


CO 


T 


m 


m 


CO 




OlOl 


CM 


r-iin 




cn 








UJ -j 




T 


r* 




T-in 


Tl 






m 








o 


m 






^ 


^T 




■^ 


m 


CO 


m 


CM 


cn 




cn| 


n 




CD 


CD 


CJ) 


CM 


m 


m 


CD 




m 




00 


on 


cn 






*n;m 


CM 


CM 




CO 








8 i 








ml 






























































































V 












1 




i 




























































1 




































CN 










a 




















































































































co 
cn 




UJ 
CO 

O 






1 




































































j 
































1 












*" 










1 j 




















































! 










1 
































1 












d 








r-l r- 


oj: r*- 


m 


^ 


C0IO 


,_ 


Ol 


■T 


r- 


,_ 


in 


OJ 


r-i 


CD 


cn 


CO 


,- 


CD 


OJ 


CM 


m 


h- 


m 


en 


CO 


CO 


in 


cnlmlm 


CM 


O 


O 


CDi 00 


r~ 


CDI oiip 


r- 


T 


Ol 


o 


CO 


i- 


T 


OJ 


CO) TTtp-. 


cm! v 




CD 








3 








ol m 




m 


m 


in 


col co 


in 


OJ| TT 


CD 


OJ 




CO 


CD 




CJ 


m 


CO 




CD 


r~ 


m 


CM 


t 


•V 




o- 


CM 


t-.lm r- 


m 


O 


m 


V O) 


r^ 




miai 


Ol 


CO 


m 


oo 


v 


v 


co 


m 


, <T CO 


00 


cniT- 




rv. 








Ifl 








ai 






co 


CD 


CSI 


ID Oil t- 




CD 


cn 






OJ 


CD 


o 


T 


m 


o- 


r- 


OJ 




m 


OJ 


O) 


CM 


o 




cni»- t- 


CD 


m 


m 




CSI| V 


o-> 


r- 


o 


m 








on 




CD 






CM" r" 


cn 


O"- 




in 








C 




*T 














CO 


















m 


















OJ 










1 








t 








OJ 












v 
















cn 








at 




cn 










































































































I 




in 








u 




cn 






































































































' 
















I 




*~ 








































































































\ 
















a. 




X 






































































































. 
















< 




CL 




































































































1 
















v 




< 














1 




































































































(J) 




















1 

i 










































i 




































I 




I 
































i ; 












































1 
































! 












Q- 


























I 






















































j 














| 




















QJ 


a 
























j 


s 












































! 










\ 




















1 












O 


aj 
o 


91 

55 








E 

ea 

jC 
< 


a 

s 

< 


o 
E 

CO 
CO 

c 
o 

I 
< 


to 

c 
o 

I 


ca 

1 
< 


c 

a 


i 
o 

. o 

1 ° 


i 

i|. 

c -S 
OJQ 


E 

O 

u 

o 

: c 

la 

|q 


! 

|. 

1 "9 
! 5 
III 


EC 

g 
o 

O 


1 E 

li 

1(3 


'5 

■ CO 

Ix 


o 

jc: 
03 


o 
c 


03 

C 

1 


<n 
g 

o 


t/i 

03 
to 
C 
CO 


C 
0) 


2 

"5 
o 

_i 




c 

(0 

1 

' 2 


- 
d: 

CO 

</) 

CO 

2 


c 

03 

o 
'd; 
o 

i 


03 
O 
<A 
CD 

C 

c 


Q 

9 

I co 

1 12 
1/ 

2 


I 

il 


03 

c 

03 

1 C 
! O 

IS 


rt3 

2 

c 

z 


i 03 

!z 


X ~i 
3; 5 

CJ, 0J 


| 

CD 
Z 


a 
> 

3 

a: 

z 


03 

c 
c 
cc 

u 

xr 
•c 
o 
z 


i 
CO r 

II 

■Si 

121 

!zio 


cc 

E 

o 

! l 




; c 
■ o 

1 

IO 


c 

03 

i 

CD 

|o- 


o 

■ o 

:cr 

io 

he 
1 9 

|a 


■o 

c 

_2 
in 
CD 

■a 

o 

JZ 


03 

C 

o 

ca 

s 

o 
o 

If) 


c 

(0 

Q 

o 

CO 


eul 

0)1 

ifll 


£1 

5 


c 
o 
E 

> 


•c| i c 
Si i° 

c] C JZ 

>1>'5 


CO 

c 

s 

> 

<D 

5 


1 

If 
oi e 

Mi. 

53 




o 
1- 




iA 
CO 

V 

on 

cn 
cn 
CL 
LU 
00 
O 


10 
V 

cnl 
cnl 
cn 
I 

< 



Figure 3 



(/) 



c 




3 




O 




o 




MM 




<0 




3 




C 




c 


^-^ 


< 


CM 




^~ 


0. 


1 


Hi 
CO 


CD 

_l 
Q. 


O 


o 


oS 




CO 




03 


X 


CO 

CO 


Q. 


03 
CL 


< 


0) 
O 


^mm 


c 


o 


CO 


c 




o 




(J) 





Q. 

E 
o 

o 




o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


O 


LO 


o 


LO 


o 


LO 


LO 


"3- 


"3- 


CO 


CO 



o 
o 
o 

LO 
CNJ 



o 
o 
o 
o 

CN 



}unoo 



higure 4 



C 



if) 



O 




CM 



E 

"co 
LU 



■o 
0) 

to 

.£ 

•4—1 

CO 

LU 



en 

CO 

c 

CI) 

O 



Q_ 
< 

O) 



o 
o 
o 
o 

CM 



O 

o 
o 
oo 



o 
o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
o 



o o 

o o 

o o 

CM O 



o 
o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
o 

CD 



o 
o 
o 

T 



o 
o 
o 

CN 



jaaiunM 



Figure 5 



x 

LU 
"O 

c 

03 




c 

LU 

c/) 

-i— » 

c 



13 

-4— » 

(0 



CD 

O) 
i 

LO 

CD 

(J) 




T3 
d) 

t 
o 

TO 
CO 

■D 
CD 

t 

CD 

o 

LU 
< 

T3 

0) 



T3 


3 


03 


CD 


^ 


O 


< 


O 


CO 


■c 


< 


o 
c 
> 




c 




3 


"O 




CD 

T7 





co 



to 
< 

CO 



X 

LU 

o 



CD 



c 

LU 
O 



c 

CD 
-Q 



0) 

l_ 

<5 
«— 
.*: 

ro 
■a 

c 

CD 

< 

TO 

C 

o 
co 

CD 

.c 
h- 

co" 

TO 
O 

O 

o 

l_ 

D 

o 

CO 



Lung 8AjjB|nujno 



Ngure 6 



c 

CD 

E 



c 

LJJ 



I 



T5 
<D 
> 

CD 

o 

03 
<D 

\- 

M 



CD 

CJ> 
i 

LO 

CT> 



CO 
CD 

i_ 
CD 

o 

d5 
CD 

H 

CO 

> 

CO 

■4— » 

c 

CD 

E 



c 
LLI 

c 


"O 
GO 





-»— » 

"co 

_Q 




co 



3 

■a 

(D 

d 
o 

tr 
o 
c 
> 
c 

_CD 

-I—' 

c 
a> 



L_ 

CD 

03 
TJ 

CD 
CD 
< 

"co 

c 
o 

ca 



CD 

I- 

co 

"03 
O 

O 

CD 

O 

i_ 

O 



junoo |B101 



ngure t 



T3 

C 

I 

(T5 
CD 
Q 





CL 



O 
03 
CD 

>^ 

~o 


>- 



O 
CO 




CD 




d 

O 

■e 
o 

c 
> 

'c 

c 





i_ 
t_ 

<D 
03 

■a 

c 

(D 

en 
< 

c 
o 



co 

"ro 
o 
O 



O 

i_ 

O 
CO 



tuns 8A!iB|nujno 



rigure o 








CD 


o 

CD 


CO 


G) 


T~~ 


T — 


r~~ 


DQ 


I 


M 



^ 



u 




-: c 


^;:||;; 


O 




C/> 


CS 


■ ■■■■■ 


^ 


cu 


oe$ 


Q- 


CD 


LUO 




o 






co : 

CNJ 




00 

CO 



LO 
CD 




-.■''.'■.. • 


P 


^^^^H 


HP 




121 


f f 










I CN US 






! • ^ IP 


jjjl 




LO 


"1 



' : ' ::, '- : 'T"': ■*■<*■' . .: 

CO 

**< 



o 

O 



c 
.2 

CD 

O 

s— 
CD 

4? 



I m 

Is 

:: : :**::: : ,:0Jx 

ilfpli 
s ° 

• s 

o fc 

:;s-g-.:>:iCis 
•'F CD 

•"■>»*' H5£- 

ft..i:d> :&; 

" llll 



/<Dj 






5 -j£ 



CO 
CD 

S a 



O 

o 

CO 



** ^ 



o 



to 



o 

o 



O ■ h c 



ngure y 







Figure 10 





A Paradigm Shift in 
Staff Development 



During the past 20 years, it 
has gone by many names — 
inservice education, staff 
development, professional develop- 
ment, and human resource develop- 
ment. But whatever it was called, it too 
often was essentially the same thing — 
educators (usually teachers) sitting 
relatively passively while an "expert" 
"exposed" them to new ideas or 
"trained" them in new practices. The 
success of this endeavor was typically 
judged by a "happiness quotient" that 
measured participants' satisfaction with 
the experience and their assessment 
regarding its usefulness in their work. 

Fortunately, all of this is at long last 
being swept away by irresistible forces 
that are currently at work in education. 
History teaches us the power of a 
transforming idea, an alteration in 
world view so profound that all that 
follows is changed forever. Such 
a paradigm shift is now rapidly 
transforming the discipline of "staff 
development." (I will use this term 
throughout because our professional 
language has not yet caught up with the 
paradigm shift that is described below.) 

Three Powerful Ideas 

Three powerful ideas are currently 
altering the shape of this nation's 
schools and the staff development that 
occurs within them. 

■ Results-driven education. Results- 
driven education judges success not by 
the courses students take or the grades 



by Dennis Sparks 



they receive, but by what they actually 
know and can do as a result of their 
time in school. Results-driven educa- 
tion for students will require that 
teachers and administrators alter their 
attitudes (e.g., from the idea that grades 
should be based on the bell curve to the 
belief that virtually all students can 
acquire the school's valued outcomes 
provided they are given sufficient time 
and appropriate instruction) and acquire 
new instructional knowledge and skills. 

Results-driven education for students 
will require results-driven staff 
development for educators. Staff 
development's success will be judged 
primarily not by how many teachers 
and administrators participate in staff 
development or how they perceive its 
value, but by whether it alters instruc- 
tional behavior in a way that benefits 
students. The goal of staff development 
and other improvement efforts is 
becoming improved performance on 
the part of students, staff, and the 
organization. 

■ Systems thinking. This second 
transforming idea recognizes the 
complex, interdependent relationships 
among the various parts of the system. 
When the parts of a system come 
together, they form something that is 
bigger and more complex than those 
individual parts. Systems thinkers are 
individuals who are able to see how 
these parts constantly influence one 
another in ways that can support or 
hinder improvement efforts. Because 
educational leaders typically have not 



thought systemically, reform has been 
approached in a piecemeal fashion. 

An important aspect of systems think- 
ing is that changes in one part of the 
system — even relatively minor 
changes — can have significant effects 
on other parts of the system, either 
positively or negatively. To complicate 
the situation, these effects may not 
become obvious for months or even 
years, which may lead observers to 
miss the link between the two events. 

For instance, graduation requirements 
may be increased, teachers may be 
trained in some new process, or deci- 
sion making may be decentralized, with 
little thought given to how these 
changes influence other parts of the 
system. As a result, "improvements" in 
one area may produce unintended 
consequences in another part of the 
system (e.g., increasing graduation 
requirements in science without making 
appropriate changes in assessment, 
curriculum, and instructional methods 
may increase the dropout rate). 

To address this issue, Peter Senge, 
author of The Fifth Discipline (1990), 
encourages organizational leaders to 
identify points of high leverage in the 
system — points that he refers to as 
"trim tabs." Change introduced into 



Dennis Sparks is Executive Director of 
the National Staff Development Council in 
Oxford, Ohio. This article is reprinted from 
the Fall 1994 issue of the Journal of Staff 
Development. 



The ERIC Rev.ew 



these areas can have a positive npplc 
effect throughout the organization (e.g., 
a change in assessment strategies may 
have a significant effect on curriculum 
and instruction). 

■ Constructivism. Constructivists 
believe that learners build knowledge 
structures rather than merely receive 
them from teachers. In this view, 
knowledge is not simply transmitted 
from teacher to student, but is instead 
constructed in the mind of the learner. 
From a constructivist perspective, it is 
critical that teachers model appropriate 
behavior, guide student activities, and 
provide various forms of examples 
rather than use common instructional 
practices that emphasize telling and 
directing. 

Constructivist teaching will be best 
learned through constructivist staff 
development. Rather than receiving 
"knowledge" from "experts" in training 
sessions, teachers and administrators 
will collaborate with peers, researchers, 
and their own students to make sense of 
the teaching/learning process in their 
own contexts. Staff development from 
a constructivist perspective will include 
activities that many educators may not 
even view as staff development, such 
as action research, conversations with 
peers about the beliefs and assumptions 
that guide their instruction, and reflec- 
tive practices (e.g., journal keeping). 

Changes in Staff 
Development 

Results-driven education, systems 
thinking, and constructivism are pro- 
ducing profound changes in how staff 
development is conceived and imple- 
mented. Some of the most important 
of these changes are: 

■ From individual development to 
individual development and organi- 
zational development. Too often we 
have expected dramatic changes in 
schools based solely on staff develop- 
ment programs intended to help indi- 
vidual teachers and administrators 
do their jobs more effectively. An 
important lesson from the past few 
years, however, has been that 
improvements in individual perfor- 
mance alone are insufficient to produce 
the results wc desire. 



It is now clear that success for all 
students depends upon both the learn- 
ing of individual school employees and 
improvements in the capacity of the 
organization to solve problems and 
renew itself. While the knowledge, 
skills, and attitudes of individuals must 
continually be addressed, quality 
improvement expert W. Edwards 
Deming estimates that 85 percent of the 
barriers to improvement reside in the 
organization's structure and processes, 
not in the performance of individuals. 

For instance, asking teachers to hold 
higher expectations for students within 
a school that tracks students pits teach- 
ers against the system in which they 
work. As systems thinking has taught 
us, unless individual learning and 
organizational changes are addressed 
simultaneously and support one an- 
other, the gains made in one area may 
be canceled by continuing problems in 
the other. 

■ From fragmented, piecemeal 
improvement efforts to staff develop- 
ment driven by a clear, coherent 
strategic plan for the school district, 
each school, and the departments 
that serve schools. Educational experts 
such as Seymour Sarason (1990) and 
Michael Fullan (1991) have criticized 
schools for their fragmented approach 
to change. School improvement too 
often has been based on fad rather than 
on a clear, compelling vision of the 
school system's future. This, in turn, 
has led to one-shot staff development 
workshops with no thought given to 
follow-up or to how the new technique 
fits in with those that were taught in 
previous years. In the worst case, 
teachers are asked to implement poorly 
understood innovations with little 
support and assistance, and before they 
are able to approach mastery, the 
school has moved on to another area. 

An orientation to outcomes and sys- 
tems thinking has led to strategic 
planning at the district, school, and 
department levels. Clear, compelling 
mission statements and measurable 
objectives expressed in terms of student 
outcomes give guidance to the type of 
staff development activities that 
would best serve district and school 
goals. In turn, district offices such as 
staff development and curriculum see 



themselves as service agencies for 
schools. This comprehensive approach 
to change makes certain that all aspects 
of the system (e.g., assessment, curricu- 
lum, instruction, parent involvement) 
are working in tandem toward a man- 
ageable set of outcomes that are valued 
throughout the system. 

■ From district-focused to school- 
focused approaches to staff develop- 
ment. While districtwide awareness 
and skill-building programs sometimes 
have their place, more attention today 
is being directed to helping schools 
meet their improvement goals. Schools 
set their goals both to assist the school 
system in achieving its long-term 
objectives and to address challenges 
unique to their students' needs. 

School improvement efforts in which 
the entire staff seeks incremental 
annual improvement related to a set of 
common objectives (e.g., helping all 
students become better problem solv- 
ers, increasing the number of students 
who participate in a voluntary commu- 
nity service program to 100 percent) 
over a 3- to 5-year span are viewed as 
the key to significant reform. As a 
result, more learning activities are 
designed and implemented by school 
faculties, with the district's staff devel- 
opment department providing technical 
assistance and functioning as a service 
center to support the work of the 
schools. 

■ From a focus on adult needs to a 
focus on student needs and learning 
outcomes. Rather than basing staff 
development solely upon the percep- 
tions of educators regarding what they 
need (e.g., to learn about classroom 
management), staff development 
planning processes are, more often 
beginning by determining the things 
students need to know and be able 
to do and working backward to the 
knowledge, skills, and attitudes re- 
quired of educators if those student 
outcomes are to be realized. This shift 
does not negate the value of teachers' 
perceptions regarding their needs, but 
rather places those needs within a 
larger context. 



■ From training that one attends 
away from the job as the primary 
delivery system for staff development 



Vol. 3 Issue 3. Winter 1995 I 



to multiple forms of job-embedded 
learning. Critics have long argued that 
too much of what passes as staff devel- 
opment is "sit and get" in which educa- 
tors are passive recipients of received 
wisdom. Likewise, a great deal of staff 
development could be thought of as "go 
and get" because "learning" has typi- 
cally meant leaving the job to attend a 
workshop or other event. 

While well-designed training programs 
followed by coaching will continue to 
be the preferred method for developing 
certain skills, school employees will 
also learn through such diverse means 
as conducting action research, partici- 
pating in study groups or small-group 
problem solving, observing peers, 
keeping journals, and becoming in- 
volved in improvement processes (e.g., 
participating in curriculum develop- 
ment or school improvement planning). 

■ From an orientation toward the 
transmission of knowledge and skills 
to teachers by "experts" to the study 
by teachers of the teaching and 
learning processes. Teachers will 
spend an increasingly larger portion of 
their work day in various processes that 
assist them in continually improving 
their understanding of the teaching and 
learning process. Action research, study 
groups, and the joint planning of 
lessons, among other processes, will be 
regularly used by teachers to refine 
their instructional knowledge and skills. 

■ From a focus on generic instruc- 
tional skills to a combination of 
generic and content-specific skills. 

While staff development related to 
cooperative learning, mastery learning, 
and mastery teaching, among other 
topics, will continue to have its place, 
more staff development of various 
forms will focus on specific content 
areas such as mathematics, science, 
language arts, and social studies. 
Recent studies have revealed the 
importance of teachers possessing a 
deeper understanding of both their 
academic disciplines and of specific 
pedagogical approaches tailored to 
those areas. 

■ From staff developers who func- 
tion primarily as trainers to those 



who provide consultation, planning, 
and facilitation services, as well as 
training. Staff developers are more 
frequently called on today to facilitate 
meetings or to assist various work 
groups (e.g., a school faculty, the 
superintendent's cabinet, a school 
improvement team) solve problems or 
develop long-range plans. While staff 
developers will continue to provide 
training in instructional areas, results- 
driven education and systems thinking 
have placed teachers, administrators, 
and school employees in new roles 
(e.g., team leader, strategic planning 
team member) for which training in 
areas such as conducting effective 
meetings will be required for success- 
ful performance. 

■ From staff development provided 
by one or two departments to staff 
development as a critical function 
and major responsibility performed 
by all administrators and teacher 
leaders. Job-embedded staff develop- 
ment means that superintendents, 
assistant superintendents, curriculum 
supervisors, principals, and teacher 
leaders, among others, must see them- 
selves as teachers of adults and view 
the development of others as one of 
their most important responsibilities. 
Individuals who perform these roles are 
increasingly being held accountable for 
their performance as planners and 
implementers of various forms of staff 
development. 

As responsibility for staff development 
has been spread throughout the school 
system, the role of the staff develop- 
ment department has become even 
more important. Staff development 
departments are assisting teachers and 
administrators by offering training and 
ongoing support in acquiring the 
knowledge and skills necessary to 
assume new responsibilities. Staff 
developers, among their other responsi- 
bilities, provide one-to-one coaching 
of these individuals in their new roles 
and facilitate meetings that are best 
led by individuals who are outside of 
a particular group. 

■ From teachers as the primary 
recipients of staff development 
to continuous improvement in 



performance for everyone who 
affects student learning. To meet the 
educational challenges of the 21st 
century, everyone who affects student 
learning must continually upgrade his 
or her skills — school board trustees, 
superintendents and other central office 
administrators, principals, teachers, the 
various categories of support staff (e.g., 
aides, secretaries, bus drivers, custodi- 
ans), and parents and community 
members who serve on policy-making 
boards and planning committees. 

■ From staff development as a 
"frill" that can be cut during difficult 
financial times to staff development 
as an essential and indispensable 
process without which schools cannot 
hope to prepare young people for 
citizenship and productive employ- 
ment. Both the development of school 
employees and significant changes in 
the organizations in which they work 
are required if schools are to adequately 
prepare students for life in a world that 
is becoming increasingly more com- 
plex. Fortunately, results-driven educa- 
tion and systems thinking provide us 
with the intellectual understanding and 
the means to create the necessary 
reforms. 

The shifts described in this article are 
significant and powerful. They are 
essentia] to the creation of learning 
communities in which all members — 
students, teachers, principals, and 
support staff — are both learners and 
teachers. All of the things described 
above will serve to unleash the most 
powerful source of success for all 
students — the daily presence of adults 
who are passionately committed to 
their own lifelong learning within 
organizations that are continually 
renewing themselves. 

References 

Fullan, M. 1991. The New Meaning of 
Educational Change. New York: Teachers 
College Press. 

Sarason, S. 1990. The Predictable Failure 
of Educational Reform. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New 
York: Doubleday. 






The ERIC Review 



NASDSE Project FORUM 

Preparing Educators to Work With Students 
Who are Blind or Visually Impaired 



CSPD 



Needs Assessment: Utilize a stakeholders advisory committee -- IHEs are a major 
participant; data gathered from Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) 
Numerous special education teacher training programs -- none have VI or O&M 
In-Service delivered through a variety of statewide meetings and staff development activities 
Utilize out of state program to provide preservice training 
No WV endorsement 



State Law 

■ Requires all educators to have a minimum of 3 staff development days/year per school 

calendar 

■ Eighteen (18) hours continuing education credits required each year 

Preservice 

■ VI-D 84.029 Personnel Preparation Grant 

■ Contract with University of Alabama (previously contract with Peabody College of 
Vanderbelt University) at WVSDB Campus 

■ Use State and Federal Discretionary Dollars 

■ Numerous Task Forces with Higher Education 

n Experimental VI Program with University of Michigan 

■ Possible Program at Marshall University -- Teubert Foundation 

Professional Development 

■ Fall Conference at WV Schools for the Deaf and Blind (every other year) 

■ VI Topical Conferences sponsored by WVDE and Deaf-Blind Project 

■ INSIGHT Early Intervention Training/Outreach Services from WVSDB 

■ PATHS Annual Assistive Technology Conferences -- VI Focus at each one 

■ Tadpole Early Intervention/Preschool Training Calendar 

■ Training by RESAs 

■ Mid-South Regional Resource Center Distance Learning Efforts 

■ Braille Specialists' Training Activities 

■ Satellite Training via 4 studios and WV Library Commission 



Technical Assistance 

■ RESA VI program in visual impairments 

■ Office of Special Education Staff 

■ Instructional Resource Center(IRC) at WVSDB 

■ WVSDB Outreach Services 

■ Toll Free Parent Action Line 



NASDSE Project FORUM 
VI Preparation 
Pase 2. 



■ Parent-Educator Resource Centers (PERCs) 

■ West Virginia Education Information System (WVEIS) Statewide Computer System 

■ RESA VII Technology Center 

■ Regular Dissemination of Research and Best Practices 

Resources 

■ Best Practices Document 

■ Deaf-Blind Project Library 

■ Schools, County and State Strategic Planning - required by state legislation 

■ Instructional Resource Center (IRC) at WVSDB 

Funding 

■ VI-D Personnel Preparation Grant 

■ State and Federal Discretionary Dollars 

■ Teubert Private Foundation 

■ Benedum Foundation 

Influencing Issues 

■ Orientation and Mobility Task Force 

■ Rural Nature of State 

■ Critical Shortage Area 

■ Accessibility of course work 

■ Outward migration from special education to regular education 

■ Early retirement/aging out within 5 years 

■ Relocation to other states 



■ Salary differentiation between school districts 

■ Increased need in public schools 

■ Small number of students/great needs 

■ Burnout 

■ Need for peers for teachers 



Michael A. Valentine, Ph.D. 

West Virginia Department of Education 



p 
■ 






APPENDIX D 

Policy Forum Agenda 



p 

P 

■ 
p 
i 
p 
I 



Agenda 

Training Educators to Work with Students 

Who are Blind or Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum 

Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC 
September 18-20, 1996 

Wednesday, September 18 

6:00 p.m. Dinner [Latrobe Room - Level 3B] 
6:45 Welcome 

Eileen Ahearn, Project FORUM 
Lou Danielson, OSEP 

7:00 Goals of the Policy Forum 

Joy Markowitz 
7: 1 5 Self introductions and participant perspective on topic 

All Participants 
8:00 Agenda review & meeting logistics 

Joy Markowitz 
Thursday, September 19 

7:30 a.m. Buffet breakfast [Latrobe Room - Level 3B] 

8 :00 Preservice training - "The state of the art" 

Anne Corn, Kay F err ell and George Zimmerman 
8:15 Essential components and structural elements of a good preservice training program 

9:30 Small group assignments 

9:35 Break 



fining Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum " TaTTTo 

Project FORUM at NASDSE , ,, f„„, 

January 21. 1997 



9:45 Small group discussions - Addressing preservice training needs 

Orange group - state and local roles [Latrobe Room] 
Green group - federal and IHE roles [Renwick Room] 

10:45 Re-convene for reports from small groups 

1 1 :30 Inservice training - "The state of the art" 

Pat Gonzalez - Literature review 

Mike Valentine - CSPD requirements and how WV addresses them 

Mike Bina - State schools for the blind 

12:00 Lunch [Grand Cafe - Level IB] 

1:15 Strategies for addressing inservice training needs 

2:00 Small group discussions - Addressing inservice training needs 

Orange group - state and local roles [Latrobe Room] 
Green group - federal and IHE roles [Renwick Room] 

3:00 Break 

3:15 Re-convene for reports from small groups 

4:00 Summary of day's accomplishments /Adjournment for day 

Friday, September 20 

8:30 a.m. Buffet breakfast [Arlington Room - Level 3B] 

9:00 Addressing personnel shortages at the preservice and inservice level 

10:30 Action plan 

11:30 Adjournment 



Training Educators to Work With Blind/Visually Impaired: A Policy Forum " pZZToi 

Project FORUM a, NASDSE Januan, 2?*?«>7 



PI 

II 

II 
II 



i 
■ 
■ 
1 
1 
I 
I 
l 
l 
I 
I